Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Withdrawing allowability
4. Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-20 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
The indicated allowability of claims 1-20 is withdrawn in view of the claim rejections -35 USC § 101 (abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determining that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, adjusting the first threshold value.”
This limitations of ”determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determining that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, adjusting the first threshold value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9:
The claim recites “determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determining that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, adjusting the first threshold value.”
This limitations of ” determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determining that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, adjusting the first threshold value.,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of “A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions thereupon which” is generic computer function merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element “processor” is generic component that are well understood, routine and conventional used as a tool to perform the processes and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 15:
The claim recites “determine that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determine that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, the one or more processors are configured to adjust the first threshold value.”
This limitation of ” determine that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value; determine that a number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds a second threshold value; and in response to determining that the number of planes or LUNs marked as bad exceeds the second threshold, the one or more processors are configured to adjust the first threshold value,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements “storage system,” “flash memory,” and “one or more processors” are generic component that are well understood, routine and conventional used as a tool to perform the processes and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. In Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claims and the claims are abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claims do not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea to improve the technology or the computer component and fails to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSMAN ALSHACK whose telephone number is (571)272-2069. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:30 AM-5:00 PM EST, also please fax interview request to (571) 273- 2069. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ALBERT DECADY can be reached on 5712723819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OSMAN ALSHACK/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights