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 claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the limitations ‘by the processing module’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determining a first repair resource among the repair resource set, based on the type of the fault, wherein the first repair resource has a granularity that is smallest among repair resources in the repair resource set that is capable of repairing the type of fault, wherein the granularity is size of memory space affected by each of the repair resources’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element ‘by the processing module’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 element ‘obtaining a repair resource set comprising redundant memory components in the memory; performing a repair of the memory using the first repair resource‘ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘further comprising obtaining a quantity of each of the repair resources in the repair resource set, and determining a quantity of the first repair resource that is available’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein the method further comprises: when the quantity of the first repair resource does not meet a repair resource need of the fault, determining a second repair resource with a second smallest granularity in the repair resource set that has a sufficient quantity to meet the repair resource need’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘the repair resource set comprises at least two of: a partial cache line sparing (PCLS) repair resource, a post-package repair (PPR) repair resource, an adaptive double device data correction (ADDDC) sparing repair resource, a device sparing repair resource, or a rank sparing repair resource; and wherein a granularity of the PCLS repair resource is less than a granularity of the PPR repair resource, a granularity of the PPR repair resource is less than a granularity of the ADDDC sparing repair resource, a granularity of the ADDDC sparing repair resource is less than a granularity of the device sparing repair resource, and a granularity of the device sparing repair resource is less than a granularity of the rank sparing repair resource’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of deciding which components comprise the repair resource set.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein the fault information comprises a first type of the fault and a quantity of faults, and the determining, by the processing module, the type of the fault comprises: determining, by the processing module, a second type of the fault based on the first type of the fault and the quantity of faults’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the processing module is a processor or a baseboard management controller (BMC) chip’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 7, with the exception of the limitation ‘wherein the processing module is integral to a chip, and the processing module comprises at least one processor and a communication interface’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 8, ‘wherein the processing module is integral to a computing device, and the processing module comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the processor is configured to use a basic input output system (BIOS) to repair the fault that is associated with the memory’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 9, with the exception of the limitation ‘wherein the processing module further comprises a baseboard management controller (BMC) wherein the processor or the BMC is configured to perform the method according to claim 1, to repair the fault that is associated with the memory’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 10, with the exception of the limitation ‘a processing module’, the claim is directed to mental processes.
The limitations ‘determine a first repair resource among the repair resource set, based on the type of the fault, wherein the first repair resource has a granularity that is smallest among repair resources in the repair resource set that is capable of repairing the type of fault, wherein the granularity is size of memory space affected by each of the repair resources’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element ‘a processing module’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 element ‘obtain a repair resource set comprising redundant memory components in the memory; perform a repair of the memory using the first repair resource‘ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation ‘further comprising obtain a quantity of each of the repair resources in the repair resource set, and determining a quantity of the first repair resource that is available’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘when the quantity of the first repair resource does not meet a repair resource need of the fault, determining a second repair resource with a second smallest granularity in the repair resource set that has a sufficient quantity to meet the repair resource need’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘the repair resource set comprises at least two of: a partial cache line sparing (PCLS) repair resource, a post-package repair (PPR) repair resource, an adaptive double device data correction (ADDDC) sparing repair resource, a device sparing repair resource, or a rank sparing repair resource; and wherein a granularity of the PCLS repair resource is less than a granularity of the PPR repair resource, a granularity of the PPR repair resource is less than a granularity of the ADDDC sparing repair resource, a granularity of the ADDDC sparing repair resource is less than a granularity of the device sparing repair resource, and a granularity of the device sparing repair resource is less than a granularity of the rank sparing repair resource’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of deciding which components comprise the repair resource set.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein the fault information comprises a first type of the fault and a quantity of faults’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); ‘determine a second type of the fault based on the first type of the fault and the quantity of faults’ is a mental process – concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘wherein the processing module is a processor or a baseboard management controller (BMC) chip’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 16-20 are not rejected under 35 USC 101 – abstract idea.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-20 because of the inclusion of the newly added limitations. Claim 16-20 are now allowed because of the addition of the newly added limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered. The 101 abstract idea is still maintained for claims 1-15. No improvements are viewed to the functioning of a computer or an improving to other technology or technical field. The repair of the memory using the first repair resource is generically performing an error correction. The newly added limitations to claims 16-20 caused the removal of the 101 – abstract idea rejection. The newly added limitations have also caused the removal of the 102/103 rejections.
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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights