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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Representative argues on page 10 of the remarks that the EOL response cannot be regarded as prestored data.
The Office respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not require nor recite “prestored data.” The claims simply recite “information data set stored in the memory” which storing may occur at any point in time. Second, the test results in Paliakov are a result of diagnostic data prestored to run those tests. See Paliakov [¶0026]. Additionally, Paliakov clearly distinguishes between “initial test results including useful life prediction,” that is prestored data and “field test results.” [¶0026].
Applicant’s Representative further argues on page 10 of the remarks that, in Paliakov, no data is stored on the dies with an unknown type and there is no data which informs about the type of other data stored in the dies.
The Office respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite “storing data with an unknown type” or “data which informs about the type of other data stored.” The claims simply require “information about a type of diagnostic data” which Poliakov teaches in [¶0026] as “useful life prediction data,” “end of life (EOL) data,” “life remaining health budget.” ¶0004, 0026, 0056.
Applicant’s Representative argues on pages 10-11 of the remarks that “an external request is missing” and that there is “no external device unit accessing the dies.”
The Office respectfully disagrees. FIG. 1 of Poliakov shows a User Facing program, a processor, an application all of which are external to the SSD/DIMM and Dies and the execution engine (EE) sends data and reports upon request to the application, user facing program to inform of the status of that NVM die; ¶0028.
Applicant’s Representative argues on page 11 of the remarks that “the EOL response cannot be regarded as data or a data type; it is the result of a test based on initial test results and additionally based on data with an already known type.”
The Office strongly disagrees and is quite perplexed at such an allegation for it is well known by a person of ordinary skill in the memory art that the term “data” or “information” is perhaps the broadest term in the art and “data” can possibly be anything under the sun although there might be a subtle distinction in the way or the means of collecting, accessing, or storing that data. As a result EOL is definitely data that reads on Applicant’s claimed “data, data set, or diagnostic data” as disclosed in ¶0004, 0026, 0056 of Poliakov.
Applicant’s Representative argues on page 12 of the remarks that the initial EOL response does not give any information to the ANN, about “what is the appropriate request procedure which enables the device (processor 105, FIG.1) to initiate an appropriate procedure for assessing the SSD/DIMM 110.”
The Office is unable to assess the point the Applicant is driving at with these arguments. In any case the Office assumes that these arguments pertain to the new limitation in claim 1: “the required request procedure providing information on how the external device can access the diagnostic data” which argument would be moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s Representative argues on pages 12 to 13 of the remarks that there is stored data that identifies how to interpret the answer data; the dies do no provide instructions on how to be accessed by the execution engine or the processor, nor do the dies provide information on how to interpret the information, rather the instant application requires the storing of information on the memory device that is useful to an unknown future external device for determining the operational condition of the memory when requested.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., stored data that identifies how to interpret the answer data; the dies providing instructions on how to be accessed by the execution engine or the processor, the dies providing information on how to interpret the information, storing of information on the memory device that is useful to an unknown future external device for determining the operational condition of the memory when req) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s Representative further argues on page 13 that the information data set is stored on the memory component itself and not in a separate memory of the controller.
The Office respectfully disagrees. FIG. 1 of Poliakov shows and SSD 110 which is a memory device storing the information data set itself.
Applicant’s Representative further argues on page 13 that the SSD/DIMM 110 does not provide any information about the required request procedure or evaluation information enabling an interpretation of the answer data to the processor.
The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a memory providing any information about the required request procedure or evaluation information enabling an interpretation of the answer data to the processor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, claims 1, 10, and 11 recite “the required request procedure providing information in how the external device can access the diagnostic data.” This limitation is not supported by the original disclosure and constitutes new matter. Applicant makes reference to ¶0048 as providing support for the limitation. However, ¶0048 simply states “the information about the required request procedure can comprise one or more bit sequences BSZ to which the memory reacts by outputting the diagnostic data DD.” The memory reacting to one or more bit sequences by outputting the diagnostic data does not substantially provide support for “the required request procedure providing information in how the external device can access the diagnostic data.”
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for currently existing memory types, does not reasonably provide enablement for “memory types that do not yet exist at all at the time when the device software was created (see ¶0011 of specification)” The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The invention is claiming subject matter of the future and not currently in existence and because no one knows the future and no one can be absolutely sure of what the memory types which are not yet known will be, the claims are not enabled for those not yet known types of memory.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poliakov et al. (2019/0189236) and PARRY et al. (US 2020/0204991).
Regarding claim 1, Poliakov et al. discloses a memory [FIG.1, 9: memory], comprising: an information data set stored in the memory [FIG. 3, 8: ANN trained data], said information data set containing: information about a type of diagnostic data made available by the memory upon external request [FIG. 4A, 8: access an ANN trained to identify one NVM die out of a set of NVM dies based on initial test results of the set of dies]; information about a required request procedure for such external requests [FIG. 5B, 7: access an ANN trained to identify one NVM die out of a set of NVM dies based on initial test results of the set of dies]; and evaluation information enabling an interpretation of answer data supplied by the memory on request [FIG. 3, ¶0029: result (delta from ideal EOL response), functions to discover if a NVM die that is coupled to discover if a NVM die that is coupled to the MC and implemented in a SSD is authentic or counterfeit, a failure indication function based on identification of a significant deviation form an ideal response, enabling to diagnose and actively monitor SSD health].
Poliakov et al. does not explicitly disclose the external request allowing an external device access to the diagnostic data, the required request procedure providing information on how the external device can access the diagnostic data.
PARRY et al., however, discloses the external request allowing an external device access to the diagnostic data [Abstract: servicing requests from the external device to access diagnostics data of the memory device], the required request procedure providing information on how the external device can access the diagnostic data [Abstract: establishing secure communication channel with debugging device and servicing requests from the external device to access diagnostics data of the memory device].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the external request allowing an external device access to the diagnostic data, the required request procedure providing information on how the external device can access the diagnostic data in order to enable debugging, diagnostics, testing, control and configuration (¶0001).
Regarding claim 2, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information defines a data format, a data structure and/or a bit arrangement of the answer data [¶0030, 0076: data in different formats].
Regarding claim 3, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the memory makes available an erase cycle count, a number of reserve blocks still available and/or a remaining lifetime of the memory as part of the diagnostic data [¶0047, 0054: total remaining health/life percentage].
Regarding claim 4, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the information about the required request procedure defines at least one bit sequence to which the memory reacts by outputting the diagnostic data, and/or defines a request command chain which a device that reads out the information data set can process in order to retrieve the diagnostic data from the memory [FIG. 4A, ¶0072: DUT1-DUT30, bit stream].
Regarding claim 5, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation information of the information data set contains interpretation instructions regarding an interpretation of the diagnostic data read out and measures recommended on a part of the memory [¶0063: based on a comparison, both the deviation between the second useful life prediction and the first useful life prediction and a related remaining health budget for the die].
Regarding claim 6, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the information data set is stored at a fixedly predefined memory location of the memory [FIG. 9: data set is stored in memory].
Regarding claim 7, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the information data set contains auxiliary information which, in a case of the memory without readability of the diagnostic data, enables an auxiliary estimation of a lifetime of the memory without the diagnostic data [FIG. 6, 9: illustrating deviation and a plot illustrating the remaining useful life or health budget of the NVM die].
Regarding claim 8, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the information data set contains description information in human-interpretable text form enabling the diagnostic data supplied by the memory to be interpreted by an operator [¶0063: output to a user value indicated by remaining health budget].
Regarding claim 1, Poliakov et al. discloses the memory according to claim 1, wherein the memory is a nonvolatile flash memory [¶0063: NVM].
Regarding claim 10, the rationale in the rejection of claim 1 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 11, the rationale in the rejection of claim 1 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 12, the rationale in the rejection of claim 4 is herein incorporated. Poliakov et al. further discloses wherein said interpretation software module reads out bit sequences and/or a request command chain from the information data set and subsequently processes same in order to retrieve the diagnostic data from the memory [FIG. 4A: DUT1 to DUT30].
Regarding claim 13, Poliakov et al. discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein said interpretation software module reads out interpretation instructions from the information data set and subsequently processes them in order to interpret the diagnostic data read out and to implement measures recommended on a part of the memory [FIG. 8].
Regarding claim 14, Poliakov et al. discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the device visually, haptically and/or acoustically outputs description information of the information data set when requested by an operator and/or enables a remote retrieval of the description information [¶0063: output to the user the value indicated by remaining health budget].
Regarding claim 15, Poliakov et al. discloses the device according to claim 11, wherein the device is a power engineering protection and/or observation device for an electrical power supply system [¶0044: run system Power].
Regarding claim 16, Poliakov et al. discloses the device according to claim 15, wherein said power engineering protection and/or observation device is selected from the group consisting of a control engineering device, a fault recorder and a unit for monitoring the network quality [¶0030: engineering manufacturing, devices under test].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. HITAKA et al. (2021/0084175) discloses diagnostic server uses the diagnostic data transferred from the SD card to perform failure diagnostics and life prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARDOCHEE CHERY whose telephone number is (571)272-4246. The examiner can normally be reached from 900-500.
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, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571)270-5935. 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.
Respectfully Submitted,
USPTO
Dated: December 19, 2025 By: /MARDOCHEE CHERY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2133
Email:Mardochee.Chery@uspto.gov Telephone: 571-272-4246
Facsimile: 571-273-4246