DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 11/20/2025 for application 18/777,316.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended. Claims 2-6, 11-15, and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-25 are new. Thus claims 1, 7-10, 16-18, and 21-25 have been examined.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong One] The claim(s) recite(s) ‘storing … updating the acceleration factor for aging of the non-volatile memory component, wherein the update is based on the last acceleration factor update time and at least one of the current temperature, and a reference temperature’, where storing and updating an acceleration factor recites mathematical calculations when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. As is evident from paragraphs [0049], [0053], [0055], [0056], and [0059] the claimed updating is computed using a mathematical computation such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
70
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Step 2A Prong Two] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining claim limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception.
The limitations ‘A system comprising: a non-volatile memory component; that stores a reference temperature, a last acceleration factor update time… ; a temperature sensor; and a processing device programmed to perform operations comprising determining, using the temperature sensor, a current temperature;’ are directed to generic elements described at a high level of generality without any detail describing the components. Examiner notes the terms reference temperature and last acceleration factor update time are simply used within the specification without any details describing the components.
The instructions ‘in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host command, entering a low-power operation state; based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operation state’ is a generic computer function implemented in almost all computers, such as a laptop that goes into a sleep state due to inactivity and is merely implementing a state. Thus these limitations are directed to generic elements described at a high level without any detail describing the components.
See MPEP 216.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception [R-10.2109] ‘The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
These claims recite a generic function of a computer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements cited above are common generic computing components or features found common in almost any computer. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) Generic computing features and function cannot provide an inventive concept and are not significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent a field of use which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claimed invention is directed to a an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong One] The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of mathematical calculations based on its dependence of claim 1 without significantly more as detailed above.
The claim limitations ‘determining, based on the updated acceleration factor, an expected remaining lifespan of the non-volatile memory component’ is a further mathematical calculation. As is evident from para [0066] of the instant application, this step is performed using mathematical formulas such as diving and subtracting.
Additionally, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase ‘determining, based on the updated acceleration factor, an expected remaining lifespan of the non-volatile memory component’ could be the simple step of observing the temperature of a component and if the component ever reached a specified temperature the component should be replaced immediately as it would be deemed unreliable. Such as step could easily be performed in the mind as a person could observe the temperature and note that a given temperature makes the component unreliable.
[Step 2A Prong Two] The additional element ‘based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, causing an alert to be presented on a display device’ an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity of “mere data gathering and output” per MPEP 2106.05(g) which is gathering data and providing data output for the gathered data.
These claims recite a generic function of a computer and insignificant extra solution activity and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the dependent claim that is not a judicial exception is insignificant extra solution activity of collecting and presenting data which is well understood, routine, and conventional and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See the Linux open source GUI tool Psensor available on the widely installed OpenSuse and Redhat distributions and provides a GUI based application software used to monitor hardware temperature and to present alerts to temperature sensor violations. Specifically pages 1 and 2 of the attached PSENSOR – Monitor Linux Hardware Temperature [Motherboard and CPU] attached to this office action and available online at https://www.tecmint.com/psensor-monitors-hardware-temperature-in-linux/ that details this tool provides ‘Alarms and Alerts to ensure you don’t miss critical system hardware temperature and fan speed-related issues’. A screen shot of the web page captured Oct 2, 2022 is attached to this office action and available online at: https://web.archive.org/web/20221002064936/https://www.tecmint.com/psensor-monitors-hardware-temperature-in-linux/. See also MPEP 2106.05(d) II ‘iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;’ which is recognized as insignificant extra-solution activity.
This limitation thus does not amount to significant more.
Even when considered in combination the additional elements that are not a judicial exception represent insignificant Extra-Solution Activity of Mere Data gathering and data presentation which is well known as evidence by its distribution with Linux source providers such as OpenSuse and Redhat and cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong One] The claim(s) recite(s)/inherits the limitation “an acceleration factor for aging…’ as detailed in claim 1 without significantly more from claim 1.
The claim recites the limitation ‘wherein the updating of the acceleration factor comprises determining a trapezoidal approximation of a term of an integral of the Arrhenius equation’. As evident from the paragraph [0053] of the instant application, an trapezoidal approximation of the term of an integral of the Arrhenius equation’ recites mathematical calculations when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. For example using the equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
70
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, this limitation solely adds limitations that fall into the “mathematical concepts” group of abstract ideas.
[Step 2A Prong Two] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations beyond the judicial exception of an abstract mathematical formula that enable the claim to be integrated into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exception of an abstract mathematical calculations thus does not present significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong One] The claim(s) recite(s)/inherits the mathematical calculations from claim 1. The additional limitation ‘further comprising a wireless network communication device, and wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the updated acceleration factor to a serve via the wireless network communication device’ is mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 216.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception [R-10.2109]. These claims recite a generic function of a computer sending data to a remote host and fails to recite details of how this is accomplished and are merely describing “apply it” on a computer. Additionally, it is “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.”
[Step 2A Prong Two] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recite additional limitations without any details of how the additional limitations accomplish their claimed steps and are equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exception of an abstract mathematical calculations with limitations that “apply it” thus does not present significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, per MPEP 2106.05 (D) II ELEMENTS THAT THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AS WELL-UNDERSTOOD, ROUTINE, CONVENTIONAL ACTIVITY IN PARTICULAR FIELDS, Subsection i. discloses the courts have recognized the computer function of receiving or transmitting data over a network is recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 1 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 1. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 7 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 7. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 8 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 8. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claimed invention is directed to mathematical calculations without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong 2] The additional limitations not found in claim 1 ‘A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operation comprising’ are directed to generic computer components thus are merely equivalent to the words “apply it” and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are a subset of the limitations found in claim 1 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 1.
Thus the claim recites mathematical relationships and updating and saving an acceleration factor that is an example of mathematical calculations without integrating the solution into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception which do not provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 7 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 7. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 8 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 8. The claim is not eligible.
Regarding claim 23, the claimed invention is directed to mathematical calculations without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong 2] The additional limitations ‘wherein: the non-volatile memory component additionally stores a fabrication date and a reference lifespan; and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan’ is further details of the mathematical calculation. As evident from para [0066] of the instant application, the determining is towards an acceleration factor that is performed using mathematical formulas such as dividing and subtracting. Adding a specific value such as a fabrication date and reference lifespan does not change the fact that the acceleration factor is a mathematical calculation.
Thus the claim recites mathematical relationships and updating and saving an acceleration factor that is an example of mathematical calculations without integrating the solution into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 24, the claimed invention is directed to mathematical calculations without significantly more.
[Step 2A Prong 2] The additional limitations ‘wherein: the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan’ is a mathematical calculation. As evident from para [0066] of the instant application, the determining is towards an acceleration factor that this step is performed using mathematical formulas such as dividing and subtracting. Adding a specific value such as a fabrication date and reference lifespan does not change the fact that the acceleration factor is a mathematical calculation.
Thus the claim recites mathematical relationships and updating and saving an acceleration factor that is an example of mathematical calculations without integrating the solution into a practical application.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
[Step 2B] The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 25, the claim describes a method of performing a subset of the limitations found in claim 24 above and thus is not patent eligible based on the rationale detailed in the rejection of claim 24. The claim is not eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1) ) in view of Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297).
Regarding claim 1, Huard teaches A system comprising: (Huard Fig. 1 and para [0042] discloses a system on a chip) a non-volatile memory component; (Huard Fig. 1 and para [0047] discloses Memory 3 may be non-volatile memory.) that stores a reference temperature, (Huard [0020] that discloses a normal usage temperature that is an example of a reference temperature.) a last acceleration factor update time, (Huard [0067] discloses that the AFT that is an acceleration factor may be based on the time passed during the period of activity, thus suggests it is based on the time of the last calculation and the current calculation.)
and an acceleration factor for aging of the non-volatile memory component; (Huard [0065] discloses the Acceleration Factor Temperature calculation (AFT) may be used to estimate the lifespan of a memory, thus is an example of an acceleration factor.)
a temperature sensor; (Huard Fig. 1 and paras [0051]-[0053] discloses monitor 10 acquires the temperature from temperature sensor 22.) and a processing device programmed to perform operations comprising: (Huard Fig. 1 and para [0056] discloses element 1 in the SOC may be a processor that performs the inventive concepts by executing software.)
determining, using the temperature sensor, a current temperature; (Huard Fig. 1 and paras [0051]-[0053] discloses monitor 10 acquires the temperature from temperature sensor 22.)
… based on .. entering into the low-power non-operation state, (Huard [0027] discloses the evaluation and saving of the acceleration factor may be triggered by a power down event where a powered down event signals an entry into a low-power non-operational state)
and updating the acceleration factor for aging of the non-volatile memory component, (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit and a measured temperature of the integrated circuit, and/or a calculation taking into account the cumulated duration of activity of the integrated circuit. See also Huard [claim 8] that discloses the acceleration factor is also a calculated “margin”.)
wherein the update is based on the last acceleration factor update time and at least one of the current temperature and a reference temperature. (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit, thus discloses both options. Huard [0069] discloses the AFT is based on the time passed during the period of activity, thus suggests it is based on the time of the last calculation and the current calculation.)
However, Huard does not explicitly disclose in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host commend, entering a low-power non-operation state; and based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operation state, updating an acceleration factor.
Semeria, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host commend, entering a low-power non-operation state; (Semeria [0004] discloses a system on a chip (SOC) where the system determines a processor is idle (i.e. no requests are received) and a duration threshold has elapsed, the scheduler initiates a shutdown process for the processor. See also Semeria [0046] that details the process of detecting and initiating the shutdown process and Semeria Fig. 8 and [0076] that discloses the SOC may be within a system such as a mobile phone 840. Thus, for at least one embodiment, the system has detected that there is no activity for the SOC from a host such as the mobile phone 840.)
Huard in view of Semeria further teaches and based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operation state, updating an acceleration factor. (Huard [0027] discloses the evaluation and saving of the acceleration factor may be triggered by a power down event where a powered down event signals an entry into a low-power non-operational state. Semeria [0004] [0046], and [0076] teaches that the power down event may be in response to detecting the system has not received a command to process for a threshold period of time. Thus the solution of Huard in view of Seria, would update an acceleration factor in response to (based on) detecting an elapsed of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host command for the processor and the system is entering into a low-power non-operational state.
Huard and Semeria are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to managing a SOC embedded in applications/implementations such as a mobile phone. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Semeria that manages a SOC containing a single processor and enters into a low power state when the SOC has not received commands from a host for a threshold period of time, into the solution of Huard that updates and maintains an acceleration factor upon entering a power down state to provide the user of the application with a more accurate lifetime expectancy for the mobile phone implementation components saving & preserving the more accurate lifetime expectancy before losing power when it might otherwise lose this helpful data. Thus, combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
The motivation to combine Semeria into Huard for claims 7-9 are the same as set forth in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huard and Semeria teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Huard further teaches wherein the updating of the acceleration factor comprises determining a trapezoidal approximation of a term of an integral of the Arrhenius equation. (Consistent with para [0017] of the instant application, a trapezoidal approximation of the Arrhenius equation can include or use the following steps. The current device temperature is periodically sampled. Based on the current temperature, a previous temperature, and a reference temperature, an acceleration factor for the device is updated. Huard [0025] discloses periodically evaluating the circuit. Fig. 2 shows that the periodic monitoring including computing an aging factor based on the calculation shown in [0065] which is based on the current temperature, a previous temperature, and a reference temperature and is an example of a trapezoidal approximation that is computed based on the trapezoid defined by the current and previous temperatures (that comprise the parallel lines of the trapezoid) and the line between the starting an ending temperatures forming the third line, and a base temperature forming a fourth line of the trapezoid. )
Regarding claim 10, Huard teaches A method comprising: (Huard [0016] discloses the inventive concepts are direct to a method of providing an operating profile of an SOC.) determining, by a processing device (Huard Fig. 1 and para [0056] discloses element 1 in the SOC may be a processor that performs the inventive concepts by executing software.) and using a temperature sensor, a current temperature; (Huard Fig. 1 and paras [0051]-[0053] discloses monitor 10 acquires the temperature from temperature sensor 22.)
… based on .. entering into the low-power non-operation state, (Huard [0027] discloses the evaluation and saving of the acceleration factor may be triggered by a power down event where a powered down event signals an entry into a low-power non-operational state)
updating, by the processing device, an acceleration factor for aging of a non-volatile memory component, , (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit and a measured temperature of the integrated circuit, and/or a calculation taking into account the cumulated duration of activity of the integrated circuit. )
wherein the updating is based on a last acceleration factor update time and at least one of the current temperature and a reference temperature; and updating the last acceleration factor update time. (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit, thus discloses both options. Huard [0069] discloses the values is based on the time passed during the period of activity that is the current and last AFT calculation. Thus suggests saving computing the difference between the current calculation time and the last calculation time, thus would have saved the time of the last acceleration factor computation/update so that it may compute Δt of [0069].)
However, Huard does not explicitly disclose in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host commend, entering a low-power non-operation state; and based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operation state, updating an acceleration factor.
Semeria, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host commend, entering a low-power non-operation state; (Semeria [0004] discloses a system on a chip (SOC) where the system determines a processor is idle (i.e. no requests are received) and a duration threshold has elapsed, the scheduler initiates a shutdown process for the processor. Semeria [0023] suggests the threshold duration is known ahead of step S2 shown in figure 1 as it does not update the threshold during the processing in Fig. 1, thus is predetermined before step S1. See also Semeria [0046] that details the process of detecting and initiating the shutdown process and Semeria Fig. 8 and [0076] that discloses the SOC may be within a system such as a mobile phone 840. Thus, for at least one embodiment, the system has detected that there is no activity for the SOC from a host such as the mobile phone 840.)
Huard in view of Semeria further teaches and based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operation state, updating an acceleration factor. (Huard [0027] discloses the evaluation and saving of the acceleration factor may be triggered by a power down event where a powered down event signals an entry into a low-power non-operational state. Semeria [0004] [0046], and [0076] teaches that the power down event may be in response to detecting the system has not received a command to process for a predetermined threshold period of time. Thus the solution of Huard in view of Seria, would update an acceleration factor in response to detecting an elapsed of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host command for the processor and the system therefore is entering into a low-power non-operational state.
Huard and Semeria are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to managing a SOC embedded in applications/implementations such as a mobile phone. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Semeria that manages a SOC containing a single processor and enters into a low power state when the SOC has not received commands from a host for a threshold period of time, into the solution of Huard that updates and maintains an acceleration factor upon entering a power down state to provide the user of the application with a more accurate lifetime expectancy for the mobile phone implementation components saving & preserving the more accurate lifetime expectancy before losing power when it might otherwise lose this helpful data. Thus, combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
The motivation to combine Semeria into Huard for claims 16-17 are the same as set forth in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 17, Huard and Semeria teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above.
The remainder of claim 17 recites limitations described in claim 8 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 8 above.
Claims 7, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1) in view of Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297)
as detailed in claim 1 above and further in view of Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan US 2021/0028983 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Huard and Semeria teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Huard further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the acceleration factor, an expected remaining lifespan of the non-volatile memory component; (Huard [0020]-[0021] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) lifetime between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit. See also Huard [0034]-[0035] that discloses the effective remaining lifetime of the system-on-a-chip based on the embodiments (including the acceleration factor) is supplied to software applications.)
and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, (Huard [0010] and claim [0008] that discloses the acceleration factor is compared against an acceptable margin, where the acceptable margin is a given and thus is an example of a predetermined threshold.)
However, the combination does not explicitly teach computing an estimated lifespan of the non-volatile memory, thus does not explicitly teach causing an alert to be presented on a display device.
Balakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, causing an alert to be presented on a display device. (Balakrishnan Fig. 1 and [0013]-[0014], [0019]-[0020], and [0045]-[0046] teaches a system that monitors the health of remote systems (2nd computing devices 120) using a 1st computing device 100, and makes recommendations for controlling the components of 2nd computing device such as fan speed so that the initial cost and (initial) expected lifespan of the compute device 120 can be compared against the (predicted/actual) life expectance of the computing device using the Arrhenius equation. Balakrishnan [0013] and [0031] –[0033] discloses that in response to evaluating the health of the remote system, the 1st computing device 100 may present suggestions to the user at the CRT screen so that the user may accept/implement recommended settings for attributes such as chip voltage and fan speed.
Thus when the solution of Huard [0010] and [0020] identifies an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) computed between a normal usage temperate of the integrated circuity and a measured temperature of the integrated circuity and recognizes it is exceeding the acceptable margins for conditions of use (i.e. the predetermined threshold) it will alert the user and enable the user to make adjustments to the chip voltage and fan speed using a display device .
Huard, Semeria, and Balakrishnan are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to managing device conditions for chip solutions. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to centrally manage devices across a network using algorithms that predict the actual lifespan of an element such as the SOC of chip that may contain a processor and non-volatile memory in the solution of Huard and Semeria based on acceleration factors sent to the server as taught by Balakrishna, thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (adjusting variables such as system voltage and fan speed at the remote device to extend the life of the remote device so that it more closely aligns with the original expected lifespan of the device to insure that the expected financial return is realized for the system use.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Huard and Semeria teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, the combination does not explicitly discuss sharing the acceleration factor over a wireless network. Thus the combination does not explicitly teach further comprising a wireless network communication device, and wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the updated acceleration factor to a server via the wireless network communication device.
Balakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches further comprising a wireless network communication device, and wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the updated acceleration factor to a server via the wireless network communication device. (Balakrishnan teaches that the local and more computers are attached via a ethernet or WiFi network to receive status information such as the acceleration factor which the server uses to compare the (original) expected lifespan to the (actual) expected lifespan deduced from the Arrhenius equation. The solution of Huard in view of Semeria and Balakrishnan would send the acceleration factor as a parameter as it has computed it to adjust the voltage on the local system, and will use the acceleration factor to adjust additional parameters such as the fan speed from the remote system.)
The motivation to combine Balakrishnan into the combination of Huard and Semeria is the same as set forth in claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huard and Semeria teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. Huard further teaches further comprising: determining, based on the updated acceleration factor, an expected remaining lifespan of the non-volatile memory component; (Huard [0020]-[0021] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) lifetime between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit. See also Huard [0034]-[0035] that discloses the effective remaining lifetime of the system-on-a-chip based on the embodiments (including the acceleration factor) is supplied to software applications.)
and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, (Huard [0010] and claim [0008] that discloses the acceleration factor is compared against an acceptable margin, where the acceptable margin is a given and thus is an example of a predetermined threshold.)
However, the combination does not explicitly teach and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, causing an alert to be presented on a display device.
Balakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, causing an alert to be presented on a display device. (Balakrishnan Fig. 1 and [0013]-[0014], [0019]-[0020], and [0045]-[0046] teaches a system that monitors the health of remote systems (2nd computing devices 120) using a 1st computing device 100, and makes recommendations for controlling the components of 2nd computing device such as fan speed so that the initial cost and (initial) expected lifespan of the compute device 120 can be compared against the (predicted/actual) life expectance of the computing device using the Arrhenius equation. Balakrishnan [0013] and [0031] –[0033] discloses that in response to evaluating the health of the remote system, the 1st computing device 100 may present suggestions to the user at the CRT screen so that the user may accept/implement recommended settings for attributes such as chip voltage and fan speed.
Thus when the solution of Huard [0010] and [0020] identifies an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) computed between a normal usage temperate of the integrated circuity and a measured temperature of the integrated circuity and recognizes it is exceeding the acceptable margins for conditions of use (i.e. the predetermined threshold) it will alert the user and enable the user to make adjustments to the chip voltage and fan speed using a display device .
Huard, Semeria, and Balakrishnan are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to managing device conditions for chip solutions. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to centrally manage devices across a network using algorithms that predict the actual lifespan of an element such as the SOC of chip that may contain a processor and non-volatile memory in the solution of Huard and Semeria based on acceleration factors sent to the server as taught by Balakrishna, thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (adjusting variables such as system voltage and fan speed at the remote device to extend the life of the remote device so that it more closely aligns with the original expected lifespan of the device to insure that the expected financial return is realized for the system use.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297 A1) and further in view of Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Semeria teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: (Semeria [0080] discloses the solution may be implemented by program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for program execution by the processing device.)
in response to detection of an elapse of a predetermined period of time without receiving a host commend, entering a low-power non-operation state; (Semeria [0004] discloses a system on a chip (SOC) where the system determines a processor is idle (i.e. no requests are received) and a duration threshold has elapsed, the scheduler initiates a shutdown process for the processor. Semeria [0023] suggests the threshold duration is known ahead of step S2 shown in figure 1 as it does not update the threshold during the processing in Fig. 1, thus is predetermined before step S1. See also Semeria [0046] that details the process of detecting and initiating the shutdown process and Semeria Fig. 8 and [0076] that discloses the SOC may be within a system such as a mobile phone 840. Thus, for at least one embodiment, the system has detected that there is no activity for the SOC from a host such as the mobile phone 840.)
However, Bursell does not explicitly disclose perform operations comprising: determining, using a temperature sensor, a current temperature; … based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operational state, updating by the processing device an acceleration factor for aging of a non-volatile memory component, wherein the updating is based on at last acceleration factor update time and at least one of the current temperature and reference temperature; and updating the last acceleration factor update time.
Huard, of a similar field of endeavor, further discloses perform operations comprising: (Huard Fig. 1 and para [0056] discloses element 1 in the SOC may be a processor that performs the inventive concepts by executing software.) determining, using a temperature sensor, a current temperature; (Huard Fig. 1 and paras [0051]-[0053] discloses monitor 10 acquires the temperature from temperature sensor 22.) …
based on detecting the entering into the low-power non-operational state, updating by the processing device an acceleration factor for aging of a non-volatile memory component, (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit and a measured temperature of the integrated circuit, and/or a calculation taking into account the cumulated duration of activity of the integrated circuit. Huard [0027] discloses the evaluation and saving of the acceleration factor may be triggered by a power down event where a powered down event signals an entry into a low-power non-operational state)
wherein the updating is based on at last acceleration factor update time (Huard [0067] discloses that the AFT that is an acceleration factor may be based on the time passed during the period of activity, thus suggests it is based on the time of the last calculation and the current calculation, thus based on the last acceleration factor update time.)
and at least one of the current temperature and reference temperature; and updating the last acceleration factor update time. (Huard [0020] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit, thus discloses all three options.)
Semeria and Huard are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to managing a SOC embedded in applications/implementations such as a mobile phone. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Semeria and Huard before them, to incorporate the teachings of Huard that computes an acceleration factor upon entering a power down state to provide the user of the application with a more accurate lifetime expectancy for the mobile phone implementation components saving & preserving the more accurate lifetime expectancy before losing power when it might otherwise lose this helpful data in the solution of Semeria that manages a SOC containing a processor and enters into a low power state when the processor has not received commands from a host for a threshold period of time. Thus Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (enable the solution of Semeria that has accelerated boot times to predict the lifespan of the components being booted) saving & preserving the more accurate lifetime expectancy before losing power when it might otherwise lose this helpful data, thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Semeria and Huard teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above.
Huard further teaches wherein the updating of the acceleration factor comprises determining a trapezoidal approximation of a term of an integral of the Arrhenius equation. (Consistent with para [0017] of the instant application, a trapezoidal approximation of the Arrhenius equation can include or use the following steps. The current device temperature is periodically sampled. Based on the current temperature, a previous temperature, and a reference temperature, an acceleration factor for the device is updated. Huard [0025] discloses periodically evaluating the circuit. Fig. 2 shows that the periodic monitoring including computing an aging factor based on the calculation shown in [0065] which is based on the current temperature, a previous temperature, and a reference temperature and is an example of a trapezoidal approximation that is computed based on the trapezoid defined by the current and previous temperatures (that comprise the parallel lines of the trapezoid) and the line between the starting an ending temperatures forming the third line, and a base temperature forming a fourth line of the trapezoid. )
The motivation to combine Huard into the existing combination is the same as set forth in claim 18 above.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297 A1) and in view of Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1) as detailed in claim 18 above and further in view of Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan US 2021/0028983 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Semeria and Huard teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above.
Huard further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining, based on the acceleration factor, an expected remaining lifespan of the non-volatile memory component; (Huard [0020]-[0021] discloses the system calculates of an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) lifetime between a normal usage temperature of the integrated circuit (an example of a reference temperature) and a measured temperature (the current temperature) of the integrated circuit. See also Huard [0034]-[0035] that discloses the effective remaining lifetime of the system-on-a-chip based on the embodiments (including the acceleration factor) is supplied to software applications.)
and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, (Huard [0010] and claim [0008] that discloses the acceleration factor is compared against an acceptable margin, where the acceptable margin is a given and thus is an example of a predetermined threshold.)
However, the combination does not explicitly teach computing an estimated lifespan of the non-volatile memory, thus does not explicitly teach causing an alert to be presented on a display device.
Balakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and based on the expected remaining lifespan and a predetermined threshold, causing an alert to be presented on a display device. (Balakrishnan Fig. 1 and [0013]-[0014], [0019]-[0020], and [0045]-[0046] teaches a system that monitors the health of remote systems (2nd computing devices 120) using a 1st computing device 100, and makes recommendations for controlling the components of 2nd computing device such as fan speed so that the initial cost and (initial) expected lifespan of the compute device 120 can be compared against the (predicted/actual) life expectance of the computing device using the Arrhenius equation. Balakrishnan [0013] and [0031] –[0033] discloses that in response to evaluating the health of the remote system, the 1st computing device 100 may present suggestions to the user at the CRT screen so that the user may accept/implement recommended settings for attributes such as chip voltage and fan speed.
Thus when the solution of Huard [0010] and [0020] identifies an acceleration factor (i.e. margin) computed between a normal usage temperate of the integrated circuity and a measured temperature of the integrated circuity and recognizes it is exceeding the acceptable margins for conditions of use (i.e. the predetermined threshold) it will alert the user and enable the user to make adjustments to the chip voltage and fan speed using a display device .
Semeria, Huard, and Balakrishnan are in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to managing device conditions for chip solutions. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to centrally manage devices across a network using algorithms that predict the actual lifespan of an element such as the SOC of chip that may contain a processor and non-volatile memory in the solution of Semeria and Huard based on acceleration factors sent to the server as taught by Balakrishna, thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (adjusting variables such as system voltage and fan speed at the remote device to extend the life of the remote device so that it more closely aligns with the original expected lifespan of the device to insure that the expected financial return is realized for the system use.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1) in view of Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297)
and Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan US 2021/0028983 A1) as detailed in claims 7 and 16 above and further in view of Radhakrishnan (RADHAKRISHNAN et al., US 2019/0369882 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Huard, Semeria, and Balakrishnan teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Huard further teaches and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan. (Huard [0020], [0030] and [0065] discloses an acceleration factor used for determining the expected remaining lifespan is based on the normal usage temperature (the reference lifespan).)
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose the non-volatile memory component additionally stores a fabrication date and a reference lifespan; and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan.
Radhakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further discloses the non-volatile memory component additionally stores a fabrication date and a reference lifespan; and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan. (Radhakrishnan [0028] discloses that a lifespan estimation can include a manufacture date of the non-volatile memory that is stored on storage device 118 per Radhakrishnan [0021]. )
Huard, Semeria, Balakrishnan, and Radhakrishnan are in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to managing device conditions that relate to a device lifespan for chip solutions. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the fabrication date of a memory into the estimated lifespan of a memory device as taught by Radhakrishnan into the solution of Huard, Semeria, and Balakrishnan that estimates the lifespan of a memory device based on the cumulative temperature exposure of the memory. Thus combining prior art elements according to known techniques to produce predictable results (start the estimate relative to the manufacturing date, and adjusting its expected lifespan based on the actual temperature environment versus the expected temperature environment, given it is well known that temperature dramatically affects the lifespan of electronic devices, to produce a more accurate estimated lifespan.).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Huard, Semeria, and Balakrishnan teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above.
The remainder of claim 24 recites limitations described in claim 23 above and thus is rejected based on the teaching and rationale of claim 23 above.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Semeria (Semeria et al., US 2018/0307297) in view of Huard (Huard et al. US 2018/0038907 A1) and Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan US 2021/0028983 A1) as detailed in claim 21 above and further in view of Radhakrishnan (RADHAKRISHNAN et al., US 2019/0369882 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Semeria, Huard, and Balakrishnan teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 above.
Huard further teaches and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan. (Huard [0020], [0030] and [0065] discloses an acceleration factor used for determining the expected remaining lifespan is based on the normal usage temperature (the reference lifespan).)
The motivation to combine Huard into the existing combination is the same as set forth in clam 21 above
However the combination does not explicitly teach and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan.
Radhakrishnan, of a similar field of endeavor, further discloses and the determining of the expected remaining lifespan is further based on the fabrication date and the reference lifespan. (Radhakrishnan [0028] discloses that a lifespan estimation can include a manufacture date of the non-volatile memory that is stored on storage device 118 per Radhakrishnan [0021].)
Semeria, Huard, Balakrishnan, and Radhakrishnan are in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to managing device conditions that relate to a device lifespan for chip solutions. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the fabrication date of a memory into the estimated lifespan of a memory device as taught by Radhakrishnan into the solution of Semeria, Huard, and Balakrishnan that estimates the lifespan of a memory device based on the cumulative temperature exposure of the memory. Thus combining prior art elements according to known techniques to produce predictable results (start the estimate relative to the manufacturing date, and adjusting its expected lifespan based on the actual temperature environment versus the expected temperature environment, given it is well known that temperature dramatically affects the lifespan of electronic devices, to produce a more accurate estimated lifespan.).
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks applicant for their claim amendments and remarks of 7/18/2025. They have been fully considered.
The Rejection of Claims Under 103
Applicant argues on page 7 of their remarks ‘However, Huard does not discus storing or updating “a last acceleration factor update time” as now recited by the independent claims’.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the rejection above Huard Fig. 2 shows Duration 23 that per Huard [0069] represents the time passed Δt during the period of activity between the current period and the last evaluation time, thus suggests updating an acceleration factor at the last time and storing the time the last acceleration factor was computed to enable the computation of the passed Δt for the next acceleration factor.
The Rejection of claims Under 101
Applicant notes on page 8 of their remarks ‘The claimed invention solves this problem through a novel trapezoidal approximation approach that maintains accuracy while reducing storage requirements’.
Examiner notes applicant identifies the focus of the inventive concepts are related to a trapezoidal approximation which is an example of a mathematical calculation and Examiner further notes mathematical calculations are not patentable.
Applicant argues on page 8 of their remarks ‘the various components of the system are not generic computing components used to implement an abstract idea, but are integrated together to implement a technical solution to the technical problem of how to obtain “the benefits of more accurate lifespan prediction .. without the costs of storing a sequence of temperatures experienced by the device.” Accordingly, the claims provide a practical application of the aging calculations, and should be found patent eligible. ‘
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states ‘the various components of the system are not generic computing components’ however the applicants specification describes the elements at a high level of generality without any detail describing the components, and thus they are generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) Generic computing features and function cannot provide an inventive concept and are not significantly more. The additional element ‘the components of the system … are integrated together to implement a technical solution to the technical problem of how to obtain “the benefits of more accurate lifespan prediction… without the costs of storing a sequence of temperatures experienced by the device’” are merely equivalent to the words “apply it” and are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Examiner further notes applicant is arguing a limitation not recited in the claims “the benefits of more accurate lifespan prediction… without the costs of storing a sequence of temperatures experienced by the device’.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138