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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “A method by a host device…” which is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-13 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 1-13 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 1 of: “receiving an indication of one or more parameters indicative of a status of one or more memory devices; selecting, based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, a destination from a plurality of destinations external to the one or more memory devices and external to the host device; and transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, the plurality of destinations being different than the host device.” 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 narrated mentally. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1-13 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1-13 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 claim 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 1 of the instant application, the limitations “receiving an indication of one or more parameters indicative of a status of one or more memory devices; selecting, based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, a destination from a plurality of destinations external to the one or more memory devices and external to the host device; and transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, the plurality of destinations being different than the host device.” 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 1-13 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merry et al. (US 2007/0260811), hereinafter referred to as Merry in view of Clark et al. (US 2003/0083079), hereinafter referred to as Clark.
Referring to claim 1, Merry teaches, as claimed, a method by a host device, comprising: receiving an indication of one or more parameters indicative of a status of one or more memory devices (i.e.-host receives/reads memory usage statistics, page 1, ¶8, lines 8-12); (i.e.-host receives/reads the memory usage statistics such as timestamps and/or temporal data, page 2, ¶20, lines 14-16); and transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters (i.e.-reporting information, such as usage statistics information, to a host device, page 1, ¶7) , the plurality of destinations being different than the host device (i.e.-transmitting the usage statistics data to another node, page 3, ¶29, lines 4-6).
However, Merry does not teach: selecting, based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, a destination from a plurality of destinations external to the one or more memory devices and external to the host device.
On the other hand, Clark discloses method and system configured to transmit data by first selecting at least one host/node as a destination device for receiving the data (page 1, ¶6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Merry and incorporate the step of: selecting, based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters, a destination from a plurality of destinations external to the one or more memory devices and external to the host device, as taught by Clark. The motivation for doing so would have been to determine which destination device to select by examining the type and content of message parameters in order to notify the health status of each storage device.
As to claim 2, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the indication of the one or more parameters in non-volatile memory associated with the host device based at least in part on receiving the indication of the one or more parameters (see Merry, page 2, ¶20, lines 14-16), wherein transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination is based at least in part on storing the indication of the one or more parameters (see Merry, page 2, ¶20, lines 14-16).
As to claim 3, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: converting the indication of the one or more parameters to data indicative of the one or more parameters, wherein transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination is based at least in part on converting the indication of the one or more parameters (see Merry, page 2, ¶24, lines 7-10).
As to claim 4, the modified Merry innately teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a trigger for transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination, wherein transmitting the one or more parameters is based at least in part on identifying the trigger (see Merry, page 2, ¶21, lines 1-6).
As to claim 5, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the trigger comprises a time, a location of the host device or of the destination, a distance to the destination, a power state of the host device, reception of a message from the destination, or any combination thereof (see Merry, page 2, ¶14-18).
As to claim 6, the modified Merry innately teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining one or more second parameters associated with operation of the one or more memory devices based at least in part on the indication of the one or more parameters indicative of the status of the one or more memory devices; and performing an access operation with the one or more memory devices based at least in part on the one or more second parameters (see Merry, page 2, ¶21, lines 9-14).
As to claim 7, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the destination, one or more second parameters associated with operation of the one or more memory devices based at least in part on transmitting the one or more parameters indicative of the status of the one or more memory devices; and performing an access operation with the one or more memory devices based at least in part on the one or more second parameters (see Merry, page 4, ¶46; ¶47; and page 5, ¶49, lines 7-12).
As to claim 8, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the destination, one or more second parameters associated with operation of the one or more memory devices based at least in part on transmitting the one or more parameters indicative of the status of the one or more memory devices; and transmitting an indication of the one or more second parameters to the one or more memory devices based at least in part on receiving the one or more second parameters (see Merry, page 4, ¶46 and ¶47).
As to claim 9, the modified Merry innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the destination comprises: selecting the destination based at least in part on the destination being associated with an entity of an ecosystem that includes the host device and the destination, the entity associated with the one or more parameters (see Merry, figs. 1&6; and page 2, ¶20).
As to claim 10, the modified Merry in view of Clark teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the destination comprises: selecting the destination based at least in part on a category of memory device usage associated with the one or more parameters, the category corresponding to the destination (see Clark, page 1, ¶6).
As to claim 11, the modified Merry innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the indication of the one or more parameters comprises: accessing a register of the one or more memory devices, wherein the register includes the indication of the one or more parameters (see Merry, page 4, ¶46).
As to claim 12, the modified Merry innately teaches the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the one or more parameters comprises: transmitting the one or more parameters to the destination via a wired connection or a wireless connection (see Merry, page 3, ¶29).
As to claim 13, the modified Merry teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of a lifetime of the one or more memory devices, a level of wear of the one or more memory devices, one or more operating conditions at the one or more memory devices, or any combination thereof (see Merry, page 1, ¶8 and page 2, ¶24, lines 13-16).
Referring to claims 14-19, the claims are substantially the same as claims 1-13, hence the rejection of claims 1-13 is applied accordingly.
Referring to claim 20, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1, hence the rejection of claim 1 is applied accordingly.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sartore (US 8,479,061), Dreifus et al. (US 8,176,367), Eno et al. (US 2022/0183252), Parry et al. (US 10,838,807), Xie et al. (US 12,373,111) and Danielson et al. (US 11,106,391) do teach method and system for communicating telematics messages such as usage statistics of memory/storage devices.
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
