Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claims 2-5, 9-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2-5 recite, “A method as recited in claim 1” but it should be -The method as recited in claim 1-. Claims 9-12 and 16-17 are rejected based on similar rationale. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1- 7, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites “ [a] method, comprising: receiving, at a data storage device that performs data operations on magnetic media, a command indicating a read range of records to read; determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error; and in response to determining that one or more of the records within the read range is known to cause an error, returning an indication indicative of the record known to cause the error . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process , Mathematics . That is, other than reciting “device,” and “medi a ” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” and “medi a ” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application . In particular, the claim only recites element, “device,” and “med ia ” to enact determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation of “ receiving, at a data storage device that performs data operations on magnetic media, a command indicating a read range of records to read .” Extra-Solution Activity. The limitation of “ in response to determining that one or more of the records within the read range is known to cause an error, returning an indication indicative of the record known to cause the error .” Extra-Solution Activity. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 2 recites “[ a] method as recited in claim 1, wherein the data storage device is a tape drive . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ method as recited in claim 1 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ wherein the data storage device is a tape drive .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 3 recites “[ a] method as recited in claim 1, comprising performing, in response to receiving the command, a read ahead of the records within the read range for determining whether one or more of the records within the read range causes an error . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ me thod as recited in claim 1 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ performing, in response to receiving the command, a read ahead of the records within the read range for determining whether one or more of the records within the read range causes an error .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 4 recites “[ a] method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error includes checking a result of a read ahead of records falling within the read range for indication of an error encountered during the read ahead . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ wherein determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error includes checking a result of a read ahead of records falling within the read range for indication of an error encountered during the read ahead ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 5 recites “[ a] method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error includes using existing information about the records in the read range to determine that an error has previously been encountered for the one or more of the records . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ wherein determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error includes using existing information about the records in the read range to determine that an error has previously been encountered for the one or more of the records ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 6 recites “[ a]n apparatus, comprising: a magnetic head: and a controller coupled to the magnetic head, the controller being configured to perform the method of claim 1 . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ perform the method of claim 1 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ a magnetic head: and a controller coupled to the magnetic head .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 7 recites “[ a] computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising: program instructions to perform the method of claim 1 . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ perform the method of claim 1 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 15 recites “[ a ] method, comprising: obtaining, from an index file, a range of records in which a target record is located; sending a command to set a read range; sending a read command to read the target record; receiving the target record; and receiving an indication indicative of a record within the read range that caused an error during a read ahead operation of records within the read range . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ obtaining, from an index file, a range of records in which a target record is located ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ sending a command to set a read range .” Extra-Solution Activity. The limitation of “ sending a read command to read the target record .” Extra-Solution Activity. The limitation of “ receiving the target record .” Extra-Solution Activity. The limitation of “ receiving an indication indicative of a record within the read range that caused an error during a read ahead operation of records within the read range .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 16 recites “[ a ] method as recited in claim 15, comprising, in response to receiving the indication, attempting to obtain a copy of at least the record within the read range that caused the error during the read ahead operation from another recording medium . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ method as recited in claim 1 5 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ in response to receiving the indication, attempting to obtain a copy of at least the record within the read range that caused the error during the read ahead operation from another recording medium .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 1 8 recites “[ a]n apparatus, comprising: a magnetic head; and a controller coupled to the magnetic head, the controller being configured to perform the method of claim 15 . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ perform the method of claim 15 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ a magnetic head; and a controller coupled to the magnetic head .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim 19 recites “[a] computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media , the program instructions comprising: program instructions to perform the method of claim 15 . ” Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea): The limitation of “ perform the method of claim 15 ,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics . Step 2A Prong 2 (A dditional Elements ): The limitation of “ one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media .” Extra-Solution Activity. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception . Step 2 B ( Inventive concept ): Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Noguchi et al. US 2026/0031173 (hereinafter “Noguchi”) . Regarding claim 1 , Noguchi teaches: A method, comprising: receiving, at a data storage device that performs data operations on magnetic media, a command indicating a read range of records to read; [0022: “ an error table is generated and updated. The error table records both memory addresses and failure counts of failure cells corresponding to failure bits. ” Also see 0002: “MRAMs”] determining whether one or more of the records within the read range is expected to cause an error; and [0022: “ Having an updated error table facilitates a better understanding of the status of the memory cells of the memory cell array, which in turn can be used for dynamic error monitor and repair. In a repair process, a portion of the data memory cells that are failure cells are replaced with backup memory cells based on the error table. ”] in response to determining that one or more of the records within the read range is known to cause an error, returning an indication indicative of the record known to cause the error. [0022: “ the repair table always keeps a record of entries with the highest failure counts, subject to its capacity. When the repair table has any change after an update, the replaced memory cell corresponding to the address being removed from the repair table is restored. ”] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of Worledge et al. US 2020/0250029 (hereinafter “Worledge”) . Regarding claim 2 , Noguchi teaches: A method as recited in claim 1 , but does not expressively disclose wherein the data storage device is a tape drive . However, does teach MRAMs. Noguchi at 0002. Worledge teaches: wherein the data storage device is a tape drive [0054: tape drives] Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Noguchi’s error monitor and repair system with Worledge memory system that includes tape drive. One would have been motivated to have combined the prior arts because Noguchi is merely silent to not exhaustively list all types of memory that could be used with his memory monitor and repair system. Worledge’s tape drive is a suitable memory type for Noguchi’s system. Examiner’s Comments No prior art rejections were given to claims 3-19. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 13-14 allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)431-0699 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M. . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-3655 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JONATHAN D GIBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113