CTNF 17/165,698 CTNF 93479 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/26/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendments filed 6/26/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 18 are still pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112 and103 rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 4/22/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarango et al. (US PGPub 2019/0042129, hereafter referred to as Tarango) in view of Healy (US PGPub 2002/0147823) in view of Dillenberger et al. (US PGPub 2011/0161972, hereafter referred to as Dillenberger) in view of Grochowski et al. (US PGPub 2005/0223199, hereafter referred to as Grochowski) in view of Pierce et al. (US PGPub 2015/0094093, hereafter referred to as Pierce) in view of Kachare et al. (US PGPub 2020/0117525, hereafter referred to as Kachare) . Regarding claim 1, Tarango teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising: one or more substrates, and a controller coupled to the one or more substrates (Fig. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs [0026]-[0027], shows the data storage device which include a controller. Since device can be a system-on-a-chip the controller would be coupled to a substrate. It should be noted that this would hold true for all controllers in memory) , the controller including logic to: control access to a NAND-based storage media, and communicate with a host device and a neighbor storage device (Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0026]-[0027], as stated previously the controller in question is a memory controller that controls the operations for the data storage device. Paragraph [0028], describes the host interface which allows for communication with a host device as well as a service (a workload). Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0014], shows the device is connected to other devices, such as the manufacturer compute device, via a network and therefore can communicate with them) , participate in one or more communications, wherein the communications are to take place while a virtual service is provided with a host device and with each of multiple heterogeneous storage devices (Abstract and Paragraphs [0014] and [0040]-[0042], describe the process of monitoring the performance of the storage devices as they performs the operations associated with a particular workload (virtual service) and that performance data is then sent to the manufacturer compute device (host). Paragraphs [0014], [0023], and [0044], show that the storage devices can be different (with regards to architecture, configuration, etc.)) , wherein: a first storage device of the multiple heterogeneous storage devices is to comprise the electronic apparatus (Fig. 1 and 3 and Paragraphs [0026]-[0027], as stated previously, the controller can be a memory controller and shows that is part of the storage device) , the one or more of the multiple communications are each with a respective one of the host device or a neighbor storage device of the multiple heterogeneous storage devices, the multiple communications are to provide to the host device capability notifications each from a different respective one of the multiple storage devices (Abstract and Paragraphs [0014] and [0040]-[0042], states that telemetry data (capability notifications) can be collected meaning that notifications/requests for that information will have to be sent and responses will have to be made) , the presence of accelerator code which is to be executed (Paragraph [0014]-[0015], states that the compute devices will execute workloads on behalf of clients and that the executable code can be modified to accelerate operations meaning that code exists to implement the acceleration) , and sharing data between devices (Paragraph [0033], states that the data storage device can obtain a configuration form an external source) , the host device is to automatically determine a reconfiguration of the first storage device based on each of the capability notifications and further based on the requirements of the virtual service (Fig. 8-10 and Paragraphs [0042]-[0045], describe the process of the manufacturer compute device receiving the telemetry data and determining an appropriate configuration based on the telemetry data it received) , receive from the host device an assignment of the reconfiguration, and execute the native commands to provide the reconfiguration of the first storage device in response to the assignment (Paragraph [0047], states that the manufacturer compute device can send the new configuration information back to the storage device. Paragraph [0033], states the device can load/implement a new configuration that it can obtain from an external source. One of ordinary skill would recognize that this is done in native commands as the controller and memory are part of the same device) . Tarango does not explicitly teach receive an administrative command which is to enable asynchronous communications, through a translation language set, with a host device and multiple heterogeneous storage devices: access a shared register space, wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices , based on the administrative command, to participate in one or more of the asynchronous communications through the translation language set, with the one or more of the asynchronous communications, the electronic apparatus is send to the neighbor storage device or receive from the neighbor storage device, code which is to be executed, the host identifying a goal of the virtual service , and convert the translation language set to native commands, and execute the native commands. Healy teaches the controller participate in one or more communications through a translation language set, convert the assignment from the translation language set to native commands, and execute the native commands (Paragraph [0078]-[0082], states that a particular language can be used for messaging between hosts and clients and that the message can be converted into the native command format of the host so that it can understand it and then respond back, the response then being converted into the message language before being sent out. Paragraph [0055], states that the hubs can be part of hosts. Paragraph [0007], shows the requests can be to send/acquire data) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tarango to incorporate the hubs of Healy into the devices present in the network so that the network is not dependent upon the operation of a single hub (Healy, Abstract). Tarango and Healy do not explicitly teach receiving an administrative command which is to enable asynchronous communications, through a translation language set, with a host device and multiple heterogeneous storage devices: access a shared register space, wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices, with the one or more of the asynchronous communications, the electronic apparatus is to share accelerator code with the host device or the neighbor storage device, the host identifying a goal of the virtual service. Dillenberger teaches identifying a goal of the virtual service (Paragraphs [0021] and [0023], states that an assignment manager can determine allocation of resources based on the goal of a service and whether or not that goal has been met) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tarango and Healy to take into account the virtual services goal as taught in Dillenberger so as to effectively and efficiently utilize available accelerator resources assigned across multiple systems (Dillenberger, Paragraph [0003]). Tarango, Healy, and Dillenberger do not teach receiving an administrative command which is to enable asynchronous communications, through a translation language set, with a host device and multiple heterogeneous storage devices: access a shared register space, wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices, with the one or more of the asynchronous communications, the electronic apparatus is to send to the neighbor storage device or receive from the neighbor storage device, code which is to be executed. Grochowski teaches receive an administrative command which is to enable asynchronous communications, wherein the logic is to asynchronously communicate with other devices (Paragraph [0181], describes the synchronous mov instruction which acts similar to the asynchronous counterpart, meaning that asynchronous communication between devices is also present. As an asynchronous counterpart exists, it means that it enables asynchronous communications. It should be noted there is nothing explicitly stating what constitutes as an administrative command) , access a shared register space, based on the administrative command (Paragraph [0181], a shared register is used to facilitate both the synchronous mov and its asynchronous counterpart meaning it is accessed based on the administrative command to perform asynchronous communications) . Since both Tarango/Healy/Dillenberger and Grotowski teach communication between devices in a system it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Tarango, Healy, and Dillenberger to use asynchronous communication as taught in Grotowski to obtain the predictable result of receive an administrative command which is to enable asynchronous communications, through a translation language set, with a host device and multiple heterogeneous storage devices: access a shared register space. Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, and Grotowski do not teach wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices and sending to the neighbor storage device or receiving from the neighbor storage device, code which is to be executed. Pierce teaches sending to the neighbor device or receiving from the neighbor storage device, code which is to be executed (Paragraph [0035] and [0053], states that configuration settings can be transferred between neighboring devices. Paragraph [0047], states the transferrable configuration settings can include methods for operating the device) . Since both Tarango/Healy/Dillenberger/Grotowski and Pierce teach sharing resources it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, and Grotowski to send code amongst its entities as taught in Pierce to obtain the predictable result of sending to the neighbor storage device or receiving from the neighbor storage device, code which is to be executed (as Tarango does teach the use of accelerator code that is utilized by the storage devices as well as sharing data (in general) and all this does is specify how the devices acquire the code). Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, and Pierce do not explicitly teach wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices . Kachare teaches wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the storage device (Paragraphs [0067]-[0069], states the shared buffer (register) can be accessed by both the host and storage device to facilitate communication and data transfer between the two) . Since both Tarango/Healy/Dillenberger/Grotowski/Pierce and Kachare teach the use of shared resources it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the shared register space of Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, and Pierce with the shared buffer space of Kachare to obtain the predictable result of wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices (as all this does is explicitly state who can access the shared space. It should also be noted the purpose of a shared space is so that multiple entities can have access to it). Regarding claim 4, Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations to claim 1. Tarango further teaches wherein the logic is further to: lock a configuration of the controller and the NAND-based storage media in response to a communication from one or more of the host device and the neighbor storage device (Paragraph [0032]-[0033], states that the storage device can determine whether or not to enter into dynamic performance adjustments in response to commands from a host (can be locked into a configuration or change it)) . Healy further teaches another translation language communication (Paragraph [0078]-[0082], as stated in the rejection to claim 1) . The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1. Regarding claims 8, 10, and 11, claims 8, 10, and 11 are the system claims associated with claims 1, 3, and 4. Since Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 and Tarango further teaches an electronic storage system, comprising: NAND-based storage media, and a controller communicatively coupled to the NAND-based storage media (Fig. 3 and Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and [0030], shows the data storage device which includes a controller and non-volatile medium that can be NAND flash) , they also teach all the limitations of claims 8, 10, and 11; therefore the rejections to claims 1, 3, and 4 also apply to claims 8, 10, and 11. Regarding claim 12, Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations to claim 8. Tarango further teaches a host and neighboring storage devices (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0014], as stated in the rejection to claim 1) . Grotowski further teaches wherein the logic is to asynchronously communicate with other devices (Paragraph [0181], as stated in the rejection to claim 1) . The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1. Regarding claim 14, Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations of claim 8. Tarango further teaches wherein the controller and the NAND-based storage media are incorporated in a solid-state drive (Paragraph [0023], states the data storage subsystem can be a solid-state drive) . The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1. Regarding claims 15, 17, and 18, claims 15, 17, and 18 are the method claims associated with claims 1, 3, and 4. Since Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, they also teach all the limitations of claims 15, 17, and 18; therefore the rejections to claims 1, 3, and 4 also apply to claims 15, 17, and 18 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare as applied to claim s 1 above, and further in view of Khan et al. (US PGPub 2015/0149695, hereafter referred to as Khan) . Regarding claim 7, Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare teach all the limitations to claim 1. Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare do not teach wherein the logic is further to: offload computation from one or more of the host device and the neighbor storage device in response to a translation language set communication. Khan teaches wherein the logic is further to offload computation from one or more of the host device and the neighbor storage device in response to a translation language set communication (Paragraph [0008] and [0011], states that computations can be offloaded from the host to several drives in a storage subsystem) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Tarango, Healy, Dillenberger, Grotowski, Pierce, and Kachare to offload computations from the host to storage devices as taught in Khan so as to mitigate latencies since the data is fed in parallel to a dedicated HW acceleration engine (Khan, Paragraph [0011]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the applicant amended the claims with the limitation “ wherein the shared register space is accessible by the host device and the multiple heterogenous storage devices ” to overcome the prior rejections set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 4/22/2026. To address this, new reference Kachare has been incorporated into the rejection to help teach the amended limitations. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST. 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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. /NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 2 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 3 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 4 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 5 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 6 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 7 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 8 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 9 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 10 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 11 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 12 Art Unit: 2132 Application/Control Number: 17/165,698 Page 13 Art Unit: 2132
Prosecution Insights