DETAILED 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 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, claims 13-18 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: One of the factors weighing against eligibility is that there is no recitation of a machine or transformation.
In this particular case, the method steps of claim 13 of: “A computerized method comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; and performing an individual media management operation on an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, the individual media management operation selected from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability measure associated with the individual group of memory components.” are directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: there is no device/apparatus/machine recited in the claims (e.g.-claim 1) and/or there is no practical transformation of a machine that is tied to the claims due to the execution of the recited method steps, hence, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be performed/narrated mentally. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 13-18 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1 is directed to an abstract idea of collecting data, and analyzing the data to provide certain results. For instance, in Electric Power Group, the concept of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis were found to be abstract.
In analyzing claim 13 of the instant application, the limitations “A computerized method comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; and performing an individual media management operation on an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, the individual media management operation selected from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability measure associated with the individual group of memory components.” are directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea of the instant application is substantially similar to the court identified abstract idea found in Electric Power Group. It is similar because it accesses data, determines/identifies certain data (analysis), and accesses the determined/identified certain data. Other court identified abstract idea are related to the abstract idea identified in the instant application, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource) and organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claim. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 13-18 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,769. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar with minor differences and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other. Note: the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the parent, as outlined in the table below.
Current application-18/233,918
US patent-12,164,769
1. A system comprising: a set of memory components of a memory sub-system; and a processing device operatively coupled to the set of memory components; the processing device being configured to perform operations comprising: accessing configuration data associated with the set of memory components; and performing an individual media management operation on an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, the individual media management operation selected from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability measure associated with the individual group of memory components.
2. The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, one or more reliability grades associated with different groups of memory components of the set of memory components.
1. A system comprising: a set of memory components of a memory sub-system; and a processing device operatively coupled to the set of memory components, the processing device being configured to perform operations comprising: accessing configuration data associated with the set of memory components; determining, based on the configuration data, one or more reliability grades associated with different groups of memory components of the set of memory components; selecting, for an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, an individual media management operation from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability grade associated with the individual group of memory components; and performing the individual media management operation on the individual group of memory components.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the individual reliability measure describes at least one of a data retention parameter, a read disturb parameter, a cross temperature parameter, or an endurance parameter.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more reliability grades describe at least one of a data retention parameter, a read disturb parameter, a cross temperature parameter, or an endurance parameter.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of media management operations comprises different media scan rates.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of media management operations comprises different media scan rates.
6. The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: storing a table that associates a first reliability grade with a first media management operation and a second reliability grade with a second media management operation.
5. The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: storing a table that associates a first reliability grade with a first media management operation and a second reliability grade with a second media management operation.
7. The system of claim 6, the operations comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that the individual group of memory components is associated with the first reliability grade; and searching the table to select the first media management operation associated with the first reliability grade.
6. The system of claim 5, the operations comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that the individual group of memory components is associated with the first reliability grade; and searching the table to select the first media management operation associated with the first reliability grade.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the individual media management operation is the first media management operation, wherein the individual group of memory components is a first group of memory components, the operations comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that a second group of memory components is associated with the second reliability grade; searching the table to select the second media management operation associated with the second reliability grade; and performing the second media management operation on the second group of memory components.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the individual media management operation is the first media management operation, wherein the individual group of memory components is a first group of memory components, the operations comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that a second group of memory components is associated with the second reliability grade; searching the table to select the second media management operation associated with the second reliability grade; and performing the second media management operation on the second group of memory components.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein the first media management operation is performed on the first group of memory components while the second media management operation is performed on the second group of memory components.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the first media management operation is performed on the first group of memory components while the second media management operation is performed on the second group of memory components.
10. The system of claim 8, the operations comprising: performing a first media scan frequency on the first group of memory components; and performing a second media scan frequency on the second group of memory components.
9. The system of claim 7, the operations comprising: performing a first media scan frequency on the first group of memory components; and performing a second media scan frequency on the second group of memory components.
11. The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: predicting reliability measures for individual groups of the set of memory components; and storing the predicted reliability measures as part of the configuration data.
10. The system of claim 1, the operations comprising: predicting reliability measures for individual groups of the set of memory components; and storing the predicted reliability measures as part of the configuration data.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the individual reliability measure represents different read and write temperature ranges, wherein a first media management operation is associated with a first reliability grade, and wherein a second media management operation is associated with a second reliability grade.
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more reliability grades represent different read and write temperature ranges, wherein a first media management operation is associated with a first of the one or more reliability grades, and wherein a second media management operation is associated with a second of the one or more reliability grades.
13. A computerized method comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; and performing an individual media management operation on an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, the individual media management operation selected from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability measure associated with the individual group of memory components.
13. A computerized method comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; … selecting, …, an individual media management operation from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability grade associated with the individual group of memory components; and performing the individual media management operation on the individual group of memory components.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the individual reliability measure describes at least one of a data retention parameter, a read disturb parameter, a cross temperature parameter, or an endurance parameter.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the one or more reliability grades describe at least one of a data retention parameter, a read disturb parameter, a cross temperature parameter, or an endurance parameter.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of media management operations comprises different media scan rates.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of media management operations comprises different media scan rates.
17. The method of claim 13, comprising: storing a table that associates a first reliability grade with a first media management operation and a second reliability grade with a second media management operation.
17. The method of claim 13, comprising: storing a table that associates a first reliability grade with a first media management operation and a second reliability grade with a second media management operation.
18. The method of claim 17, comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that the individual group of memory components is associated with the first reliability grade; and searching the table to select the first media management operation associated with the first reliability grade.
18. The method of claim 17, comprising: determining, based on the configuration data, that the individual group of memory components is associated with the first reliability grade; and searching the table to select the first media management operation associated with the first reliability grade.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; and performing an individual media management operation on an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, the individual media management operation selected from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability measure associated with the individual group of memory components.
19. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: accessing configuration data associated with a set of memory components; … selecting, for an individual group of memory components of the set of memory components, an individual media management operation from a plurality of media management operations based on an individual reliability grade associated with the individual group of memory components; and performing the individual media management operation on the individual group of memory components.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the configuration data comprises a table that associates the individual group of memory components with a first reliability grade and associates another group of memory components with a second reliability grade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the presence of the obviousness type double patenting rejection (see above) but would be allowable if the rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Basu et al. (US 10,838,645), Fackenthal (US 10,528,099), Goss et al. (US 8,248,856), Huang et al. (US 11,922,027), Jang et al. (US 11,301,371), KIM et al. (US 9,330,790) and Muthiah (US 11,797,190) do teach memory system controller configured to perform plurality of memory operations based on a configuration data set for different memory sub-system components. Please see the attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184