DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application, filed June 24, 2025. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending in this application. The applicant has canceled claim 5. The applicant has added new claim 10.
Examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The present application was filed on February 29, 2024, which is on or after March 16, 2013, and thus is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0326058 A1) in view of Ogimura (US 2015/0224797 A1) and further in view of Sukumaran et al. (US 8,874,732 B1).
As per claim 1: A system for predicting an abnormality of a first device, the system comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
search second devices having a setting item that matches with a setting item of the first device;
calculate similarity between the first device and the second devices based on setting information;
identify one of the second devices that has a history of occurrence of an abnormality and has similarity more than a predetermined value with respect to the first device;
Lee discloses [0029-0030] searching a plurality of memory storage devices that has similar characteristics. The storage devices may track the characteristics using a characteristics data structure, such as a characteristics table. The storage devices provide the information to a storage controller so a similarity between the current device and a plurality of devices can be calculated. Lee further discloses [0218-0219] upon determining the memory device has similar characteristics, the storage controller may provide the tuning information and/or characteristics to each of the other storage devices.
calculate a first increment value of a number of uses of the first device, based on a first total number of uses of the first device within a first predetermined period;
calculate a second increment value of a number of uses of the identified second device at a previous occurrence of the abnormality in the identified second device;
Lee discloses [0029-0030] the storage device may track a number of read operations performed and a number or PE cycles performed on the memory cells. Lee discloses a plurality of storage devices that can track read operations or PE cycles. Therefore, it is clear that a plurality of storage devices calculate a number of uses of the devices where the PE cycles voltage thresholds are measured. Tuning operations can be performed for optimal voltage based on previous occurrence of PE cycles reaching certain thresholds.
determine a predicted abnormality of the first device by comparing the first increment value and the second increment value; and
in response to determining the predicted abnormality of the first device, notify the first device of the predicted abnormality.
Lee discloses [0029-0030] determining predicted voltage threshold based on comparing of PE cycles of the plurality of storage devices, but fails to explicitly disclose compare increment value to predict anomaly. Ogimura discloses [0076] in the event that the cumulative number of printed sheets has exceeded the threshold value, the durability flag can be set to a ‘1’ and can be regarded as including an error (abnormality) in excess of an allowable range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee with that of Ogimura. One would have been motivated to compare value to predict anomaly because it allows to set a flag to indicate an error [Ogimura; 0076].
Lee and Ogimura discloses determining an abnormality, but fail to explicitly disclose determing an abnormality based on a request or a preset time. Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 7-15] comparing information from the same period of time in these records to determine if an abnormality has occurred. Sukumaran further discloses [col. 5, lines 26-32] determining a discrepancy in response to a determination request by an auditor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Lee and Ogimura with that of Sukumaran. One would have been motivated to determine an abnormality at a request or preset time because it allows to find a source of the discrepancy [Sukumaran; col. 5, lines 35-40].
As per claim 2: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate a second increment value of a number of uses of a second device included in a second apparatus similar to the first apparatus, based on a second total number of uses of the second device within a second predetermined period of time until a time at which an abnormality has occurred in the second device; and compare the first increment value with the second increment value to determine an abnormality of the first device.
Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 25-43] measuring usage records for a plurality of devices and comparing the values with a threshold value and previous usage patter values (first increment value). If auditor determines a discrepancy when the results exceed a predetermined threshold, the auditor may assist in finding a source of the discrepancy.
As per claim 3: The system according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a normalized total value of the number of uses of the first device, based on normalization of a third total number of uses of the first device from a start of use of the first device; calculate a threshold based on the normalized total value and the second increment value; and notify the predicted abnormality of the first device when the first increment value is equal to or larger than the threshold.
Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 12-30] normalize and compare information from the same period of time to determine if the results validate the operation and usage records store. The usage records may be normalized to ensure comparisons between records are accurate. The auditor may declare a discrepancy if the normalized usage fail to match the internal normalized usage records by a threshold. Different thresholds may be used for different services and/or different types of usage.
As per claim 4: The system according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate the threshold as an average value of the normalized total value and the second increment value.
Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 30-36] different thresholds may be used for different services and/or different types of usage. It is clear that the threshold is calculated based on usage and normalized total values.
As per claim 6: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the predicted abnormality of the first device in response to a determination request.
Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 26-32] determining a discrepancy in response to a determination request by an auditor.
As per claim 7: The system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the predicted abnormality of the first device at a preset time.
Sukumaran discloses [col. 5, lines 7-15] comparing information from the same period of time in these records to determine if an abnormality has occurred.
As per claim 8: Although claim 8 is directed towards a method claim, it is rejected under the same rationale as the system claim 1 above.
As per claim 9: Although claim 9 is directed towards a medium claim, it is rejected under the same rationale as the system claim 1 above.
As per claim 10: The system according to claim 1, wherein a use history including the history of occurrence of the abnormality is stored for the first device and each of the second devices, and the setting item of the first device and the setting item of each of the second devices are stored to calculate the similarity.
Lee discloses [0061] tracking error codes and faults within the memory device and collecting the information. Lee further discloses [0029-0030] utilizing tuning information from one storage device and applying the tuning information to other storage devices that have similar characteristics.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
· US 9,529,543 B1 – Vidyapoornachary discloses the NVDIMM controller can issue an alert to the host system in response to an endurance parameter value exceeding a threshold value.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGAR P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5067. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 10AM-6PM.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIGAR P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114