DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 14-25 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2023, 12/17/2024, 04/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 2: change to “memory, [[,]] the method comprising:”
Claim 14, last line: change to “status -data”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the monitor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 25 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the BRI encompasses signals per se and software per se. The specification of the instant application fails to exclude signals per se and software per se from the interpretation of “a computer program product” ([00166]: “The technical solutions according to the embodiments of the application may be embodied in the form of a software product.” [00167]: “A software product can adopt any combination of one or more readable media. The readable medium may be a readable signal medium or a readable storage medium.” [00168]: “The computer-readable storage medium may be a data signal”). For this reason, Claim 25 recites patent ineligible subject matter.
Claims 14-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 14, 24, 25
Claim 14, 24, and 25 recite:
acquiring service life data and access status data of the embedded flash memory;
performing statistics on the access status data to obtain a statistical result of the access status;
generating early warning information if it is determined according to the service life data and/or the access status data that an early warning condition is met; and
reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status according to the early warning information
Step 1: is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes:
Claim 14 is a process
Claim 24 is a machine
Claim 25 is an article of manufacture*
*Note: for the purposes of analyzing abstract ideas without significantly more, Claim 25 is treated as an article of manufacture to satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘performing’ limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using a human aid (e.g., pen and paper) and a mathematical concept defined by mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculation. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses a mathematical calculation, which may be performed by a person mentally or with pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generating’ limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses merely generating a notification. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘reporting and displaying’ limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “reporting and displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following elements:
Electronic device (Claims 14, 24)
Embedded flash memory (Claim 14)
Memory (Claim 24)
Processor (Claims 24, 25)
Computer program (Claims 24, 25)
Computer program product (Claim 25)
Instructions (Claim 25)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere
instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the
abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits
on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regards to #1 and #3-4, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites:
acquiring the service life data and the statistical result of the access status in response to a search request.
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
Claim 15 recites the abstract idea(s) of its parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in #5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #5, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites:
storing the service life data and the access status data in a database
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
Claim 16 recites the abstract idea(s) of its parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘storing’ limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #6, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites:
displaying a change of the embedded flash memory itself based on time span
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
Claim 17 recites the abstract idea(s) of its parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘displaying’ limitation in #7 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #7, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites:
displaying a service life loss status compared with other embedded flash memories.
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s).
Claim 18 recites the abstract idea(s) of its parent claim.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘displaying’ limitation in #8 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #8, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites:
filtering the service life data and the access status data according to different filtering conditions
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s). In addition to the abstract idea(s) recited in the parent claim, Claim 19 further recites:
The ‘filtering’ limitation in #9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “filtering” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an association.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites:
displaying the service life data and the access status data in sequence according to specified criteria.
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s). In addition to the abstract idea(s) recited in the parent claim, Claim 20 further recites
The ‘displaying’ limitation in #10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making a determination ([00141]: displaying via ranking).
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites:
monitoring the early warning information
acquiring the service life data and the access status data
notifying or sharing the early warning information and/or the acquired service life data and access status data to other monitors or devices
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s). In addition to the abstract idea(s) recited in the parent claim, Claim 21 further recites:
The ‘monitoring’ limitation in #11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “monitoring” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in #12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘notifying’ limitation in #13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “notifying” in the context of this claim encompasses sending a mere notification. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #11-13, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 22
Claim 22 merely further describes the monitoring process of Claim 21.
Claim 23
Claim 23 recites:
acquiring an instruction of the monitor
processing the acquired service life data and access status data to protect the embedded flash memory.
Step 2A, Prong I: does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, (an) abstract idea(s). In addition to the abstract idea(s) recited in the parent claim, Claim 23 further recites:
The ‘processing’ limitation in #15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making a determination about data.
Step 2A, Prong II: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘acquiring’ limitation in #14 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses merely receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to #14, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 14-17, 19-20, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al. (US 20170131948 A1, hereinafter “Hoang”) in view of ZHANG et al. (CN 106844166 B, hereinafter “ZHANG”).
Regarding Claim 14, Hoang discloses a monitoring method for an electronic device configured with an embedded flash memory (Fig. 2A), , the method comprising:
acquiring service life data and access status data of the embedded flash memory ([0070]: a logging program can be used to periodically record (acquire) monitored SMART attributes including service life data (e.g., SSD life left) and access status data (e.g., read/write/erase-related attributes). [0028]: logged SSD attributes are flash memory attributes);
performing statistics on the access status data to obtain a statistical result of the access status ([0135]: The analyzer program can use the stored SMART history to calculate and display behavior and/or performance of the SSD such as life expectancy. [0095]-[0096]: a formula for calculating the remaining lifetime includes analyzing access status data such as maximum number of erase counts and program/erase cycles);
Hoang does not disclose:
generating early warning information if it is determined according to the service life data and/or the access status data that an early warning condition is met;
and reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status according to the early warning information.
However, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches:
generating early warning information if it is determined according to the service life data and/or the access status data that an early warning condition is met (ZHANG: lines 84-93: usage information (e.g., access status information such as read, write, error data per partition) can be statistically analyzed. Based on the statistical analysis, different early warning schemes can be given. A warning scheme may be given based on the amount of unrecoverable space based on the statistical analysis of usage information. In other words, a specific warning scheme is generated when an unrecoverable space threshold (early warning condition) is met according to usage information);
and reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status according to the early warning information (ZHANG: lines 95-101: the early warning, indicative of service life data (amount of unrecoverable space) and statistical result of usage information, is reported to maintenance personnel. Hoang: Fig. 7B: displays remaining life data. [0095]-[0096]: calculates remaining lifetime using access status data such as max erase count and program/erase cycles, thus displaying remaining life data encompasses both service life data and the statistical result of access status data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hoang and ZHANG by implementing the early warning reporting scheme taught by ZHANG along with displaying remaining life data taught by Hoang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to accurately predict whether the storage device will start to accelerate failure and notify maintenance personnel to improve system reliability and availability (ZHANG: lines 75-82).
Regarding Claim 15, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, further comprising:
acquiring the service life data and the statistical result of the access status in response to a search request (Hoang: [0140]: host can decide to read life acceleration parameters at a (specified) time period, write period, or when an external condition is met. [0144]: life acceleration parameters include various SSD life-related data and read/program/erase-related data. [0146]: when there are 2 or more life acceleration parameter records, life acceleration can be calculated from SMART attributes ([0144] which contains various access status data). Therefore, the scheduled reading and calculation of SMART attributes is interpreted as a search request).
Regarding Claim 16, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, further comprising:
storing the service life data and the access status data in a database (Hoang: [0138]: attributes can be stored in the SSD such as in a log file in the SSD. Logged attributes may include wear leveling (service life data) and read/write/erase-related data (access status). [0139]: the recorded information is used to determine various SSD characteristics. Thus, the log file serves as a database for determining various SSD characteristics).
Regarding Claim 17, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, wherein reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status comprises:
displaying a change of the embedded flash memory itself based on time span (Hoang: [0030]: visual behavior of storage devices as a function of time is provided. [0033]: time graphs can allow a user to trace a sudden change in performance of the storage drive. [0028]: storage drives refer to flash memory devices).
Regarding Claim 19, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, wherein reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status further comprises:
filtering the service life data and the access status data according to different filtering conditions (Hoang: Fig. 7B and [0165]: service life data (life rem, life) and access status data (read/write) are filtered by various life acceleration characteristics (e.g., gentle, moderate, aggressive)).
Regarding Claim 20, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, wherein reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status further comprises:
displaying the service life data and the access status data in sequence according to specified criteria (Hoang: Fig. 7B and [0165]: service life data (life rem, life) and access status data (read/write) are displayed in sequence according to various life acceleration characteristics (e.g., gentle, moderate, aggressive) and increasing time).
Regarding Claim 24, the method of Claim 14 performs the same steps as the device of Claim 24, and Claim 24 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 14 by the teachings of Hoang in view of ZHANG.
Hoang further discloses an electronic device (Fig. 15 and [0275]: computer 2001 implements various aspects of the invention), comprising:
a memory (Fig. 15: memory 2032), a processor (Fig. 15: CPU 2031) and a computer program stored in the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the processor executes the computer program to implement the method ([0271]: computer program stored in a machine readable storage to perform various steps disclosed herein. The software program may be run on a processor).
Regarding Claim 25, the method of Claim 14 performs the same steps as the product of Claim 25, and Claim 25 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 14 by the teachings of Hoang in view of ZHANG.
Hoang further discloses a computer program product, comprising computer programs or instructions that are executed by a processor to implement the method ([0272]: methods can be embedded in a computer program product. [0271]: Software program containing code sections may be run on a processor).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of NAKASAKI et al. (JP 2018061177 A, hereinafter “NAKASAKI”) and ROTHBERG (US 20170068467 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 17, as referenced above.
Neither Hoang nor ZHANG teaches:
wherein reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status further comprises:
displaying a service life loss status compared with other embedded flash memories.
However, Hoang, in view of ZHANG, in further view of NAKASAKI teaches:
wherein reporting and displaying the service life data and the statistical result of the access status further comprises:
displaying a service life loss status compared with other… memories (NAKASAKI: [0092]: the calculation result of the remaining life of each HDD 106 is displayed to allow the user to grasp the replacement of each HDD 106. [0093]-[0094]: display 512 further highlights corresponding columns to emphasize storage attributes (e.g., number of replacement sectors, unprocessed sectors, unperformable processing sectors, etc.) that exceed a threshold value. [0037]: HDD 106 may be a plurality (e.g., 8) HDDs 106. Therefore, the remaining life of each HDD 106 are displayed and highlighted columns indicating degrading HDD health may be compared with (un)highlighted columns of other HDDs).
Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of NAKASAKI does not teach:
…a service life loss status compared with other embedded flash memories
However, ROTHBERG teaches:
…a service life loss status compared with other embedded flash memories ([0022]: flash storage system 110 may include more than two flash memory devices 130. [0040]: controller may order the flash memory devices in a linked list based on the projected life values. Flash memory devices having more remaining cycles may be positioned near a beginning of a linked list and may be repositioned based on an updated value for remaining cycles (service life loss status). Therefore, ordering a particular flash memory device involves comparing remaining cycles of other flash memory devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hoang, ZHANG, and NAKASAKI by implementing the remaining life display of HDD devices as taught by NAKASAKI. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow the user to roughly grasp the necessity of replacement of each storage device such as HDD 106 (NAKASAKI: [0092]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to substitute the comparison of HDD remaining lives as taught by NAKASAKI with the comparison of flash remaining cycles as taught by ROTHBERG. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because a simple substitution of one known element (NAKASAKI: [0092]: HDD remaining life) for another (ROTHBERG: [0040]: remaining cycles) obtains predictable results (display a comparison of service life loss status). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of Garrett JR. et al. (US 20220137830 A1, hereinafter “Garrett”).
Regarding Claim 21, Hoang in view of ZHANG teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above, further comprising:
…and acquiring the service life data and the access status data (Hoang: [0070]: a logging program can be used to periodically record (acquire) monitored SMART attributes including service life data (e.g., SSD life left) and access status data (e.g., read/write/erase-related attributes);
Neither Hoang nor ZHANG teaches:
monitoring the early warning information…; and
notifying or sharing the early warning information and/or the acquired service life data and access status data to other monitors or devices.
However, Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of Garrett teaches:
further comprising:
monitoring the early warning information (Garrett: [0070]: each platform manager 310 monitors for certain changes indicative of a premature reaction to I/O errors (see [0072]))…; and
notifying or sharing the early warning information and/or the acquired service life data and access status data to other monitors or devices (Garrett: [0071]: the monitored changes are shared with system manager 340 and data path component 320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hoang, ZHANG, and Garrett by implementing the notification system taught by Garrett in addition to notifying maintenance personnel taught by ZHANG. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to prevent the data path component from prematurely indicating storage drives as the failing component to avoid possible unnecessary service interruptions (Garrett: [0006]).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of Garrett, and in further view of Allen et al. (US 20070288791 A1, hereinafter “Allen”)
Regarding Claim 22, Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of Garrett teaches the method according to claim 21, as referenced above.
Neither Hoang nor ZHANG nor Garrett teaches:
wherein a plurality of monitor processes performs the monitoring at the same time
However, Allen teaches:
wherein a plurality of monitor processes performs the monitoring at the same time ([0194]: System status manager 402 collects (monitors) additional health information from other components to determine the root cause of a degraded system. Multiple system status managers may work in parallel to evaluate different potential fault paths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Hoang, ZHANG, Garrett, and Allen by implementing the parallel collection and processing scheme taught by Allen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to evaluate different potential fault paths to diagnose the problem (Allen: [0194]).
Regarding Claim 23, Hoang in view of ZHANG, in further view of Garrett, in further view of Allen teaches the method according to claim 22, as referenced above, further comprising:
acquiring an instruction of the monitor (Garrett: [0070]-[0071]: system manager 340 receives a notification (instruction) from monitoring platform managers 310 and aggregates information related to storage drive changes to take corrective action) and processing the acquired service life data and access status data to protect the embedded flash memory (Hoang: [0138]-[0139]: recorded information (wear leveling efficiency, read/write/erase data) is analyzed and displayed. [0028]-[0029]: time characteristics of storage devices (i.e., SSD flash memory) can be analyzed and displayed to provide indication and improvement of SSDs ([0188]: view effect of changes, revert to old conditions, make improvements to new load). The display also shows when SSDs will need to be replaced (e.g., see Fig. 14A – estimated remaining time), both of which protects the embedded SSD flash memory).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cha et al. (US 20140372681 A1) – outputs a light or sound to the host in response to reaching a write threshold in flash memory
Hashimoto (US 20140173268 A1) – displays predicted lifespan against attribute value of an SSD. Generates a pop-up notification to alert the user of remaining lifespan and corrective actions to back up data and replace the SSD
Merry et al. (US 8312207 B2) – maintains usage statistics of wear state and remaining useful life. Host may use statistics information to display or report remaining life, adjust frequency of data writes, and/or select types of data written to the memory subsystem
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4pm.
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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114