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.
Claim 1 recites “[a] memory sub-system comprising: a memory device comprising a plurality of blocks; a processing device operatively coupled with the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: identifying a read error associated with a block of the plurality of blocks; determining a charge loss value associated with the block; determining whether the charge loss value is greater than or equal to a charge loss threshold; and responsive to determining the charge loss value is greater than or equal to the charge loss threshold, identifying the block as a healthy block.”
The limitation of “identifying a read error associated with a block of the plurality of blocks,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determining a charge loss value associated with the block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “responsive to determining the charge loss value is greater than or equal to the charge loss threshold, identifying the block as a healthy block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 1, wherein determining the charge loss value associated with the block comprises: determining a voltage value corresponding to a feature of a voltage distribution associated with the block; and using a difference between the voltage value and a default voltage value corresponding to the feature of the voltage distribution to determine the charge loss value.”
The limitation of “determining a voltage value corresponding to a feature of a voltage distribution associated with the block; and using a difference between the voltage value and a default voltage value corresponding to the feature of the voltage distribution to determine the charge loss value.,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 2, wherein the feature of the voltage distribution comprises at least one of a valley, a peak, a median, a mean, or a mode.”
The limitation of “wherein the feature of the voltage distribution comprises at least one of a valley, a peak, a median, a mean, or a mode,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 1, wherein the charge loss threshold corresponds to an expected charge loss based on a data retention duration for data stored at the block.”
The limitation of “wherein the charge loss threshold corresponds to an expected charge loss based on a data retention duration for data stored at the block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 1, wherein the charge loss value is a first charge loss value associated with a first portion of the block, wherein the charge loss threshold is a first charge loss threshold associated with the first portion, and wherein the read error is associated with a second portion of the block, the operations further comprising: determining a second charge loss value associated with the second portion of the block; determining whether the second charge loss value is greater than or equal to a second charge loss threshold; and responsive to determining the second charge loss value is greater than or equal to the second charge loss threshold, identifying the block as the healthy block.”
The limitation of “wherein the charge loss value is a first charge loss value associated with a first portion of the block, wherein the charge loss threshold is a first charge loss threshold associated with the first portion, and wherein the read error is associated with a second portion of the block, the operations further comprising,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determining a second charge loss value associated with the second portion of the block; determining whether the second charge loss value is greater than or equal to a second charge loss threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “responsive to determining the second charge loss value is greater than or equal to the second charge loss threshold, identifying the block as the healthy block.,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 5, wherein the first charge loss threshold is different from the second charge loss threshold.”
The limitation of “wherein the first charge loss threshold is different from the second charge loss threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he memory sub-system of claim 1, wherein identifying the read error associated with the block of the plurality of blocks comprises: determining that the block has satisfied a criterion to be identified as a bad block.”
The limitation of “wherein identifying the read error associated with the block of the plurality of blocks comprises: determining that the block has satisfied a criterion to be identified as a bad block,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “device,” “memory,” and “processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “device,” “memory,” and “processor” language, “identifying… [and] determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper identifying and determining data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the 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. In particular, the claim only recites element “device,” “memory,” and “processor” to enact identifying and determining. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the identifying and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-14 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-7, respectively.
Claims 15-19 and (20) are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-5 and (7), respectively.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Besinga et al. US 2023/0268014 [Abstract, Background, and Summary]
IM 2015/0357043 [Abstract, Background, and Summary]
Moschiano et al. US 2009/0052269 [Abstract, Background, and Summary]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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 P 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113