NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. However, the claimed invention is directed to performing steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind. An analysis of the claims regarding subject matter eligibility follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 recite a method and claims 13-20 recite a device, which are statutory categories of invention, therefore satisfying Step 1 of the analysis.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites determining a matrix of differences, and predicting whether the storage device will fail, which, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations entirely in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Specifically, the steps of determining a matrix of differences, and predicting whether the storage device will fail may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, and judgement of the storage device attributes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection Ill). For example, the claimed determining a matrix of differences may encompass a human observing a storage device and thinking about or writing down attributes of the storage device. And the claimed predicting whether the storage device will fail may encompass the human thinking about the attributes.
Claims 2-12 recite further limitations that fall under the judicial exception as recited in claim 1. Each of the further limitations encompass performance of the steps within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The additional elements recited in claim 1, a storage device, a matrix, and a first time period, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations are directed to implementing the abstract idea using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and recite mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 2-12 recite further details regarding the matrix, weights, and duration of time. These claims contain no additional elements which would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 2 above, the recitations of a storage device, a matrix, and a first time period are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data using generic computers and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection Il).
Regarding claims 2-12, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they simply apply the exception using a generic computer.
Claims 13-20 are directed to a device for performing the same steps as performed by the method of claims 1-8. As such, the analysis is the same as applied to claims 1-8.
Therefore, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea without significantly more, and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0058075 to Satheesh Kumar et al. (hereinafter Kumar).
Kumar discloses:
1. A method for predicting a failure of a storage device, comprising:
determining a matrix of differences between actual values of a plurality of attributes of the storage device obtained during a first time period and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of the storage device for the first time period (para. [0063] and Fig. 2, step 210 – difference matrix calculated based on operational and reference data sets); and
predicting whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences (para. [0063] and Fig. 2, step 212 – determine whether data includes a fault).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the predicting of whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences comprises:
predicting whether the storage device will fail based on a first similarity between the matrix of differences and first matrices of differences for a plurality of healthy storage devices and a second similarity between the matrix of differences and second matrices of differences for a plurality of failed storage devices (para. [0077]).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first matrices of differences comprises a matrix of differences between actual values of the plurality of attributes of each of the healthy storage devices obtain during a time period with a first duration and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of the healthy storage devices for the time period with the first duration (para. [0065]),
wherein the second matrices of differences for the plurality of failed devices comprises a matrix of differences between actual values of the plurality of attributes of each of the failed storage devices for the time period with the first duration before each failed storage device failed and predicted values of the plurality of attributes of each of the failed storage devices for the time period with the first duration before each failed storage device failed (para. [0077]), and
wherein the first duration is the same as a duration of the first time period (paras. [0034], [0065]).
4. The method of claim 2, the predicting of whether the storage device will fail based on the matrix of differences comprises:
determining that the storage device will not fail when the first similarity is greater than the second similarity (paras. [0063], [0078]); and
determining that the storage device will fail when the first similarity is not greater than the second similarity (paras. [0063], [0078]).
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the first similarity is indicative of a sum of distances between the matrix of differences and the first matrices of differences, and the second similarity is indicative of a sum of distances between the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences (paras. [0074]-[0075]).
6. The method of claim 5 further comprises:
determining first distances between the matrix of differences and the first matrices of differences based on a matrix of first weights for the attributes, the matrix of differences, and the first matrices of differences (paras. [0067]-[0075]); and
determining second distances between the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences for the plurality of failed storage devices based on a matrix of second weights for the attributes, the matrix of differences and the second matrices of differences (paras. [0067]-[0075]).
Claims 13-18 are a device for performing the same steps as performed by the method of claims 1-6, and are rejected under the same rationale.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
James et al. - Exception Analysis For Multimissions.
Clark - PREDICTING FAILURE OF A STORAGE DEVICE.
Madsen et al. - NON-INTRUSIVE PERFORMANCE MONITOR AND SERVICE ENGINE.
Chatterjee et al. - Systems, Devices And Methods For Predicting Disk Failure And Minimizing Data Loss.
Klein et al. - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR REDUCED SSD FAILURE VIA ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNING.
Bielby et al. - Temperature Based Optimization Of Data Storage Operations.
Nijhawan et al. - Systems And Methods For Adaptive Proactive Failure Analysis For Memories.
Sghiouer et al. - Method And Device For Determining A Technical Incident Risk Value In A Computing Infrastructure From Performance Indicator Values.
Liu - METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT FOR MEMORY FAULT PREDICTION.
Hao et al. - FAILURE PREDICTION APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR STORAGE DEVICES.
Gu et al. - MEMORY ERROR PREDICTION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND DEVICE.
Park et al. - DETECTING A QUALITY-RELATED FAULTY COMPONENT AND PREDICTING UNCORRECTABLE ERRORS INCURRED BY A COMPONENT USING MACHINE LEARNING.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Guyton whose telephone number is (571)272-3807. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571)272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP GUYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113