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
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/22/2026 with respect claims 1, 9, and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant contends that claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to determination of bad blocks is based on detecting specific failure modes during operations on flash memory. The claims, as amended and even as originally presented, are directed to a specific technological improvement in flash memory storage systems and are not directed to a mental process or other abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the amendment limitations of “wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations on flash memory” do not integrate abstract idea into a practical application because is merely extended elements of the abstract idea and falling withing Mental Processes. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “determining that the amount of bad blocks” and “detecting one or more of write failures” and do not include any details about how the “determining” and “detecting” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of Mental Processes without a practical application. See the 101 analyzing below. In regards to claim 1, relying on the evaluation flowchart in MPEP 2106: At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations ----; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites one additional element of “a flash memory” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “a flash memory” is generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
In regards to claim 9, relying on the evaluation flowchart in MPEP 2106:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to "A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media" and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations ----; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites additional element/s of “A tangible non-transitory computer-readable media,” “a processor,” and “flash memory” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim recites additional element/s “A tangible non-transitory computer-readable media,” “a processor,” and “flash memory” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
In regards to claim 15, relying on the evaluation flowchart in MPEP 2106:
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, the claim is directed to a "storage system" and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations--- ; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO. The claim recites additional element/s of “flash memory” and “one or more processors” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO. The claim recites additional element/s “flash memory” and “one or more processors” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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.
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.
4. 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 “A method comprising: determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations on flash memory; 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.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations ----; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “flash memory” and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because is generic computer function merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element/s “flash memory” is generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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. See the prior arts Shen et al. US 2018/0342301 A1 in paragraph [0015] & Fig. 1, and Zhang et al. US 2015/0294741 A1 in paragraph [0036], & Fig. 3 teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 9:
The claim recites “Amended) A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising: determining that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations on flash memory; 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.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to "A tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media" and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations ----; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “A tangible non-transitory computer-readable media,” “flash memory,” and “a processor” and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic computer function merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim recites additional element/s “A tangible non-transitory computer-readable media,” “flash memory,” and “a processor” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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). See the prior arts Shen et al. US 2018/0342301 A1 in paragraphs [0003], [0014], and [0015], and Zhang et al. US 2015/0294741 A1 in paragraph [0036], [0064], and [0066] teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 15:
The claim recites “A storage system, comprising: flash memory; and one or more processors configured to: determine that an amount of bad blocks in one or more planes or logical unit numbers (LUNs) meets a first threshold value, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations on flash memory; 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.”
At Step 1, is the claim directed to a processor, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes, see MPEP 2106.03. The claim is directed to a "storage system" and thus directed to a statutory category. At step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, see MPEP 2106.04. 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, wherein the determining that the amount of bad blocks comprises detecting one or more of write failures, erase failures, or read failures during operations--- ; 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. At step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, see MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites additional element/s of “flash memory” and “one or more processors” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic components for performing the abstract idea and does not add any meaningful limits to the abstract idea. At step 2B, Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception? NO, see MPEP 2106.05. The claim recites additional element/s “flash memory” and “one or more processors” are generic components that are well understood, routine and conventional and do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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). See the prior arts Shen et al. US 2018/0342301 A1 in paragraphs [0014]- [0015], and Zhang et al. US 2015/0294741 A1 in paragraph [0036], [0064], and [0066] teach well known elements. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 2, 3, 16, and 17:
The claims recite more additional limitations without significantly more. The claims fail to remedy the exception by integrating it into a practical application or adding elements that amount to significantly more than the exception the process steps all still comprise mental processes. Therefore, the claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claims. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As per claims 4, 10-12 and 18:
The claims recite more additional limitations without significantly more because 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 fail to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As per claims 5 ,13, and 19:
The claims recite more additional limitations without significantly more because 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 fail to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 6:
The claim recites more additional limitations without significantly more because is extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claim and the claim is abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claim does 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 claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 7:
The claim recites more additional limitations without significantly more because is extended elements of the abstract idea of the independent claim and the claim is abstract in nature falling withing Mental Processes. The dependent claim does 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 claim is not patent eligible.
As per claims 8 and 14, and 20:
The claims recite more additional limitations without significantly more because 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 fail to add significantly more than the abstracts idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Examiner Notes
5. When amending the claims, applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Prior Art
6. The prior art of record, considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, is listed in the attached PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
7. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights