Final Office 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on May 17, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202410619864.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 6, 7, and 19 are 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 6 recites the limitation “a corresponding type fault detection model” and claim 1 from which claim 6 depends also recites “a corresponding type fault detection model. It is unclear as to whether the models are one in the same.
Claim 7 is rejected for being dependent upon rejected claim 6 and does not cure the deficiencies of claim 6.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a corresponding type fault detection model” and claim 14 from which claim 19 depends also recites “a corresponding type fault detection model. It is unclear as to whether the models are one in the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 13-19, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following is ana analysis of the claims.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 13
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 recite a method—a process
Claim 1
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 1 recites:
predicting a possibility of failure of one or more of the plurality of control line types based on the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types, to obtain a type prediction result for the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
performing a fault detection operation on the non-volatile memory based on the type prediction result of each of the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation--see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In view of para. [0073] of the specification, the fault detection is determined by making comparison with normal data and fault data, which is merely making an evaluation in the mind.
wherein the fault detection operation comprises performing missing value completion on the threshold voltage distribution data for each of the plurality of control lines of each of the plurality of control line types to obtain a completed distribution data This limitation is a mathematical operation that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(III)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental process of making an evaluation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 1 additionally recites:
obtaining threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
obtaining, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Additionally, the additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model The fault detection model is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end steps in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly” more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 additionally recites:
obtaining threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines are well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0041].
inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The fault detection model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end step processes in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the extra solution activity defined are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to general purpose computer components to perform limitations which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 2 recites performing, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, data dimensionality reduction on data in each of a plurality of data dimensions for each of a plurality of control lines of each of the plurality of control line types These limitations recite a mathematical process—performing statistics--that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: performing an evaluation. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 2 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 2 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 3 recites performing missing value completion on the threshold voltage distribution data for each of a plurality of control lines of each of the plurality of control line types to obtain the completed distribution data, wherein data dimensions corresponding to each of each control lines in the completed distribution data are the same, and wherein the same data dimension represents a same number of sampling points These limitations recite a mathematical process that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and performing an evaluation. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 3 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 3 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 4 recites:
completing a missing value in the threshold voltage distribution data by interpolation These limitations recite a mathematical process that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and performing an evaluation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
or based on a first data dimension of a first control line of a first control line type, among the plurality of control line types, being less than a maximum data dimension, completing the threshold voltage distribution data of the first control line by utilizing a default value such that a completed data dimension of the first control line is equal to a maximum data dimension, wherein the maximum data dimension is a maximum voltage range covered by all control lines in the first control line type These limitations recite a mathematical process that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and performing an evaluation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 4 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 5 recites:
performing a statistical operation on the data in each of the plurality of data dimensions to obtain a statistical value of the data in the each data dimension These limitations recite a mathematical process that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and performing an evaluation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
and taking the statistical value of the data in each of the plurality of data dimensions as dimensionality reduced data for the respective data dimension after the data dimensionality reduction These limitations also recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, making a judgment, and performing an evaluation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 5 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 5 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 6 recites: performing fault prediction and obtaining the type prediction result of failure of the one or more of the plurality of control line types. These limitations recite a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, making a judgment, and performing an evaluation. The additional limitation obtaining the type prediction result is merely making a determination or a judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 6 recites additional limitations inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model, performing fault prediction through the corresponding type fault detection model. The fault detection model is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not recite the algorithms required to perform the fault prediction. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model, performing fault prediction through the corresponding type fault detection model are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The fault detection model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 8 recites: performing fault detection, and obtaining a fault detection result of the non-volatile memory. This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and making a judgment. The additional limitation obtaining a fault detection result is merely making a determination or a judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 8 recites additional limitations inputting the type prediction result of each of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a fusion model, performing fault detection through the fusion model. The fusion model is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not recite the algorithms required to perform the fault detection. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations inputting the type prediction result of each of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a fusion model, performing fault detection through the fusion model are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The fusion model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 10 recites:
based on detecting a presence of a fault in the non-volatile memory corresponding to a first control line type among the plurality of control line types. This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation and making a judgment.
performing abnormality scoring for each of a plurality of control lines of the first control line type to obtain an abnormality score of each of the plurality of control lines This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making a judgment and making an evaluation. The scoring is nothing more than assigning a rating. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
and based on a presence of a score mutation point in the abnormality scores of all of the plurality of control lines, identifying a first control line, among the plurality of control lines, with an abnormality score greater than the score mutation point as a bad line in the first control line type This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation—presence of a score mutation and making a judgment—identifying a control line as a bad line.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 10 does not recite additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
Claim 10 does not recite additional limitations that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 11 recites: performing abnormality scoring and obtaining the abnormality score of each of the plurality of control lines. This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making a judgment and making an evaluation. The scoring is nothing more than assigning a rating. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The additional limitation obtaining a fault detection result is merely making a determination or a judgment.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 8 recites additional limitations inputting the threshold voltage distribution data of each of the plurality of control lines into a scoring model, performing abnormality scoring by the scoring model. The scoring model is recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not recite the algorithms required to perform the scoring. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
The additional limitations inputting the threshold voltage distribution data of each of the plurality of control lines into a scoring model, performing abnormality scoring by the scoring model are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The scoring model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites the additional limitations:
wherein the non-volatile memory is a NAND flash solid state drive. The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are well-known, routine and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0037].
and the threshold voltage distribution data is NAND threshold voltage distribution data The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the additional limitations recite nothing more than data. The additional limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity--selecting information, based on types of information (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The courts recognize selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as extra-solution activity, and it does not add significantly more to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 14-19
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claims 14-19 recite an apparatus comprising a memory and one or more processors—a machine and a manufacture.
Claim 14
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 14 recites:
predict a possibility of failure of one or more of the plurality of control line types based on the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types, to obtain a type prediction result for the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
perform a fault detection operation on the non-volatile memory based on the type prediction result of each of the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation--see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In view of para. [0073] of the specification, the fault detection is determined by making comparison with normal data and fault data, which is merely making an evaluation in the mind.
wherein the fault detection operation comprises performing missing value completion on the threshold voltage distribution data for each of the plurality of control lines of each of the plurality of control line types to obtain a completed distribution data This limitation is a mathematical operation that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(III)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental process of making an evaluation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 14 additionally recites:
A fault detection apparatus comprising a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and one or more processors configured to executed the one or more instructions to The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtain threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
obtain, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Additionally, the additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
input the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model The fault detection model is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end steps in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly” more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 additionally recites:
A fault detection apparatus comprising a memory configured to store one or more instructions; and one or more processors configured to executed the one or more instructions to The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: para. [0169]-[0170].
obtain threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtain, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines are well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0041].
input the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The fault detection model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end step processes in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the extra solution activity defined are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to general purpose computer components to perform limitations which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 3 above.
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 5 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 above.
Claim 27
Step 1: Do the claims recite a statutory category?
Claim 27 recites A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement a fault detection method—a machine and a manufacture.
Step 2 A – Prong 1: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Claim 27 recites:
predicting a possibility of failure of one or more of the plurality of control line types based on the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types, to obtain a type prediction result for the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
performing a fault detection operation on the non-volatile memory based on the type prediction result of each of the one or more of the plurality of control line types This limitation recites a mental process. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental processes: making an observation, a judgment, and an evaluation--see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). In view of para. [0073] of the specification, the fault detection is determined by making comparison with normal data and fault data, which is merely making an evaluation in the mind.
wherein the fault detection operation comprises performing missing value completion on the threshold voltage distribution data for each of the plurality of control lines of each of the plurality of control line types to obtain a completed distribution data This limitation is a mathematical operation that can be performed in the mind with the aid of pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(III)). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, the claim is drawn to the mental process of making an evaluation.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Claim 27 additionally recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement a fault detection method The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
obtaining threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)).
obtaining, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). Additionally, the additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). These limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model The fault detection model is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitations amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and is not a practical application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)), and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the judicial exception to a technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end steps in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
When considering the claim as a whole these additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. The additional limitations do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The additional limitations do not implement a judicial exception with, or use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim.
Step 2B: Do the claims provide an inventive concept?
When evaluating whether the claims provide an inventive concept, the presence of any additional elements in the claims need to be considered to determine whether they add “significantly” more than the judicial exception.
Claim 27 additionally recites:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, is configured to implement a fault detection method The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: para. [0167]-[0168].
obtaining threshold voltage distribution data corresponding to a non-volatile memory This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
obtaining, based on the threshold voltage distribution data, a data feature of each of a plurality of control line types in the non-volatile memory, each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines This limitation is a step that merely transmits/stores data. Therefore, this step is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal (See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3)). The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i). The additional limitation is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations each of the plurality of control line types having a plurality of control lines are well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in the instant specification: para. [0041].
inputting the data feature of the one or more of the plurality of control line types into a corresponding type fault detection model is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional and merely recite a general purpose computer as shown in the instant specification: [0169]-[0170] and [0079]. The fault detection model is described at a high level of generality and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering and end step processes in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process and mathematical calculation to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the extra solution activity defined are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to general purpose computer components to perform limitations which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In view of the recent amendments, the rejection of claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 13-16, 18-19, and 27, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al., US 2023/0040070 A1, has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of the recent amendments, the rejection of claim(s) 4 and 17, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., US 2023/0040070 A1 in view of Janik et al., US 2015/0205664, has been withdrawn.
In view of the recent amendments, the rejection of claim(s) 8, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., US 2023/0040070 A1 in view of Ghai et al., US 9,711,227, has been withdrawn.
In view of the recent amendments, the rejection of claim(s) 10 and 11, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al., US 2023/0040070 A1 in view of Xiao et al., US 2025/00181498, has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “Specifically, the claimed features of claim 1 are directed to a computer-centric technical improvement (e.g., the problem of the inaccurate fault detection result of the non- volatile memory in paragraph [0004] of the specification).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to mere data gathering and an abstract idea. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The Applicant fails to show how the claim limitations provide a technical improvement and the argument is merely conclusory.
On page 14 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “Therefore, the claim does not recite subject matter that falls within any of the enumerated groupings shown above. In this way, the claim is patent eligible under Prong One of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons given in the rejection above.
On pages 15-16 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “In this manner, accuracy, detection speed, and efficiency in fault detection is improved as describes in paragraph [0053] (and other portions) as follows: ‘Through the above data dimensionality reduction, the amount of data may be reduced and the computing speed of the detection algorithm may be improved, and at the same time, valuable information in the threshold voltage distribution data may be retained. For example, the overall distribution of the threshold voltage may be retained to ensure the accuracy of the subsequent fault detection.’ Moreover, paragraph [0080] of the specification describe that ‘Here, through the type fault detection models for each control line type separately, the automated prediction of the possibility of failure of each control line type may be realized for use in combining the type prediction result for each type to predict the possibility of a fault for the memory as a whole.’” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 14, and 27 do not recite a dimensionality reduction. Further, the dimensionality reduction of data is a mathematical process (see [0050]-[0051] of specification) that can be performed in the mind (statistical values such as average values, a mean square deviation, and the like—see [0048] of specification) and amounts to mere manipulation of data. The accuracy, speed, and efficiency referred to is achieved through using a computer for its processing. This is merely using a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Paragraph [0080] of the specification merely recites that additional fault detection models are used. The Applicant merely uses a computer as a tool to perform additional data processing. The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions. The claim does not provide any details about how the fault detection model operates or how the detection is made, and the plain meaning of “detecting” encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of an anomaly in a data set.
On page 16 of the REMARKS, the Applicant argues, “In particular, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements ‘[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application,’ has been found to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. For example, the claimed features provide a specific improvement over conventional system/technology (e.g., at least in terms of accuracy, speed and efficiency) as described in paragraphs [0053] and [0080] of the specification. Applicant submits that claim 1 provides an ‘inventive concept,’ and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant fails to identify any elements that are significantly-more, which is the test for Step 2B. The claims do not recite elements that are significantly more than what is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Further, the claimed features provide a specific improvement over conventional system/technology (e.g., at least in terms of accuracy, speed and efficiency) as described in paragraphs [0053] and [0080] of the specification. The accuracy, speed, and efficiency referred to is achieved through using a computer for its processing. This is merely using a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The remaining arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0261616 A1 discloses various control line types. Liu discloses modeling of threshold voltage distribution for a NAND flash memory.
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 MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights