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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 19 December, 2025 and before the mailing date of this action were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 19 March, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner further acknowledges amendments to the independent claims (1, 12, 18) which have resulted in rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 upon further search and consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinter (US 2008/0320233), in view of Maybee et al. (2014/0115244) (hereafter Maybee), Fukami et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,423,558), hereinafter referred to as Fukami, and Ki (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0384492).
As per claims 1, 12 and 18, Kinter teaches an apparatus, comprising:
one or more memory devices (fig. 1, 132, and also see [0019] wherein system memory is another memory device included therein);
a host interface operable by the apparatus to communicate on a peripheral bus connected to a local host system (fig. 1, 127A, B, C (any of the terminal points wherein the bus connects to the processors and/or coherency manager, along with the buses themselves) can all be construed as a host interface since IEEE describes an interface as a shared electrical boundary by which information is conveyed);
a network interface operable by the apparatus to communicate on a computer network connected to a remote host system (fig. 1, 127A, B, C any of the terminal points wherein the bus connects to the processors and/or coherency manager, along with the buses themselves); and
a controller (fig. 1, 125) coupled to the host interface, the network interface, and the device (see fig. 1), the controller configured to (note: [0036], [0046] describing how method 250 and 200 can operate in conjunction):
receive packets obtained by the network interface from the remote host system (fig. 2A, wherein the packets are requests for access([0025] also see fig. 2B describing the use of snoops in accessing data), along with writebacks ([0026]-[0027], see fig. 2A);
recover first control messages ([0025] requests for access) and first data messages (writebacks [0026]-[0027]) from the packets, the first data messages including first host data provided by the remote host system (In order to perform the corresponding steps depending on whether the request is for access or writeback, the control messages and data must be extracted from the data being sent);
send the first control messages through the host interface to the local host system ([0037]] snoop commands to determine which processor core units hold the requested data; whereby the host interface is the interfaces used to transmit the requests from the coherency manager to the subset of processing cores);
receive second control messages via the host interface from the local host system responsive to the first control messages ([0037] wherein the responses are received); and
process the second control messages ([0038] wherein the results are used to determine which processing cores to forward the data requests to) and the first data messages (writeback), without sending the first data message or the first host data to the local host system, to write the first host data into the solid-state drive ([0025] describes the snoop responses which are construed to be the control messages and this processing is done prior to any commands sent to the processors which hold the cache. As a result the second control messages are processed without sending first data message or first host data to the local host system. Also the writeback following steps 215, 230, 235 and 240 are performed without sending the data to the local host system; see [0034]), wherein the second control messages are used to configure access by the first data messages to the solid-state drive (¶ 0037, wherein the responses provide an indication of which memory or memories to request the data from).
Kinter does not explicitly teach a solid state drive having the one more memory devices.
However, Maybee teaches a solid state drive having the one more memory devices ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the solid state drive of Maybee with the apparatus of Kinter because it provides a means of storing data in a nonvolatile memory to ensure data remains even when power is lost ([0014]).
The previously cited references do not teach wherein the first control messages do not include the first host data to be written to the SSD, however Fukami Column 8, lines 46-62 describe a write request the networked storage cluster of Fig. 1, which includes separate paths for control and data, wherein commands and data are sent separately e.g. commands do not include host data to be written (see lines 55-59, commands and data are sent on separate paths, so the command must functionally not include data to be in accordance with the disclosure). 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 disclosure of Fukami in order to separate control and data messages and benefit from “systems and methods for efficiently routing data in a communication fabric” (Column 1, lines 58-59).
The previously cited references do not teach that wherein each first data message of the first data messages and each first control message of the first control messages are recovered or generated from a respective one of the packets, however Ki teaches an embodiment of a storage device which processes packets including data messages and command messages (¶ 0043 packets are routed to storage device, lines 14-24 packets include host-provided data which in example may consist of configuration profiles and meta data (control messages) as well as binary code for execution (data messages)), achieving the claimed limitation. 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 disclosure of Ki in order to implement more sophisticated storage-side message processing and to offload some processing to the storage device (¶ 0035, lines 1-8).
As per claim 2, Kinter teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
read second host data from the solid-state drive according to one or a read command specified in the first data messages;
generate second data messages containing the second host data; and transmit, via the network interface, the second data messages to the remote host system without the second host data or the second data messages going through the host interface ([0038] describes wherein data is requested and if none of the caches hold this data then the data is obtained from a lower level memory).
As per claim 3, Kinter teaches wherein the first data messages further include a write command and the first host data to be written according to the write command (As illustrated fig. 2A with the writeback).
As per claim 4, Kinter teaches wherein the second control messages are processed to generate meta data according to which the first host data is written into the solid-state drive (As illustrated in fig. 2B, 285 wherein when data is identified in a core’s cache and marked as modified, it is written back).
As per claim 6, Kinter teaches wherein the second control messages are configured to set up a channel to write the first host data ([0019] describes how these buses are bi-directional and therefore need to be “set up” to transmit data in a specific direction).
As per claim 19, Kinter teaches wherein the first control messages include commands for administrative and management operations; and the first data messages includes read commands and write commands (fig. 2B, write back command); and in response to the read commands, the controller is further configured to: read second host data from the storage device; generate second data messages containing the second host data; and transmit, via the network interface, the second data messages to the remote host system without the second host data or the second data messages going through the host interface ([0038] describes wherein data is requested and if none of the caches hold this data then the data is obtained from a lower level memory).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, and Ki in view of Greer et al. (US 2017/0344430) (hereafter Greer).
As per claim 5, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claim 4. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first control messages include a command to create, map, or delete a namespace; and the meta data is associated with the namespace.
However, Greer teaches wherein the first control messages include a command to create, map, or delete a namespace; and the meta data is associated with the namespace ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the commands of Greer with the messages of Kinter and Maybee because namespaces allow for partitioning of storage to ensure all objects are given a unique name to be easily identified ([0013]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, and Ki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2020/0065018).
As per claim 7, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claim 6. The combination does not explicitly teach: random-access memory, wherein the channel includes one or more queues configured for the solid-state drive according to the second control messages.
However, Hong teaches random-access memory, wherein the channel includes one or more queues configured for the solid-state drive according to the second control messages ([0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the RAM and queues of Hong with the method and apparatus of the combination in Kiner and Maybee because provides a means of temporarily storing commands while in transit ([0146]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, and Ki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Jain (US 2021/0303424).
As per claim 8, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claim 6. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the channel is configured with data used by the controller to perform address translation to write the first host data into the solid-state drive.
However, Jain teaches wherein the channel is configured with data used by the controller to perform address translation to write the first host data into the solid-state drive ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the address translation of Jain with the method and apparatus of the combination of Kiner and Maybee because it ensures that a host can interact with nonvolatile memory ([0030]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, and Ki as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Manning (US 2010/0106889).
As per claim 9, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claim 6. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first control messages include a credential to access a storage capacity of the solid-state drive.
However, Manning teaches wherein the first control messages include a credential to access a storage capacity of the solid-state drive ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the credentialling of Manning with the method and apparatus of the combination of Kiner and Maybee because it provides a means of restricting access to the solid state drive ([0017]).
As per claim 10, Manning teaches wherein the first control messages further include a command to set a security attribute ([0017] wherein the command is a password check).
As per claim 11, Manning teaches wherein the first control messages further include a command to adjust a storage configuration in the solid-state drive ([0017] wherein the command is a password check to whether the configuration of restricting access is set or not).
Claim(s) 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, and Ki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 2018/0141750) (hereafter Hasegawa).
As per claims 13 and 20, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claims 12 and 19. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first control messages and the first data messages are transmitted from the remote host system to the apparatus via a storage protocol according to:
internet small computer systems interface;
fibre channel;
fibre channel over ethernet; network file system; or
server message block; and
wherein the first control messages are sent to, and the second control message are received from, the local host system via a computer peripheral bus according to:
serial advanced technology attachment; peripheral component interconnect express; universal serial bus; fibre channel; serial attached small computer system interface; double data rate; small computer system interface; open NAND flash interface; low power double data rate; non-volatile memory express; or compute express link.
However, Hasegawa teaches converting one data protocol into another data protocol including fibre and scsi ([0089]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the protocol conversion of Hasegawa with the method and apparatus of the combination of Kinter and Maybee
As per claim 14, Kinter teaches:
reading, by the apparatus, second host data from the memory device according to a read command specified in the first data messages;
generating, by the apparatus, second data messages containing the second host data; and
transmitting, via the network interface, the second data messages to the remote host system without the second host data or the second data messages going through the host interface ([0038] describes wherein data is requested and if none of the caches hold this data then the data is obtained from a lower level memory);
wherein the first data messages further include a write command and the first host data to be written according to the write command (fig. 2A, write back).
As per claim 15, Kinter teaches wherein the second control messages are processed to generate meta data according to which the first host data is written into the memory device, and set up a channel to write the first host data (As illustrated in fig. 2B, 285 wherein when data is identified in a core’s cache and marked as modified, it is written back; [0019] describes how these buses are bi-directional and therefore need to be “set up” to transmit data in a specific direction).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, Ki, and Hasegawa as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Greer et al. (US 2017/0344430) (hereafter Greer).
As per claim 16, the combination of Kinter, Maybee and Hasegawa teaches all the limitations of claim 15. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first control messages include a command to create, map, or delete a namespace; and the meta data is associated with the namespace.
However, Greer teaches wherein the first control messages include a command to create, map, or delete a namespace; and the meta data is associated with the namespace ([0072]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the commands of Greer with the messages of Kinter, Maybee and Hasegawa because namespaces allow for partitioning of storage to ensure all objects are given a unique name to be easily identified ([0013]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Fukami, Ki, Hasegawa, and Greer as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Hong (US 2020/0065018).
As per claim 17, the previously cited references teach all the limitations of claim 16. The combination does not explicitly teach: random-access memory, wherein the channel includes one or more queues configured for the solid-state drive according to the second control messages.
However, Hong teaches random-access memory, wherein the channel includes one or more queues configured for the solid-state drive according to the second control messages ([0146]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the RAM and queues of Hong with the method and apparatus of the combination of Kinter, Maybee, Hasegawa, and Greer because provides a means of temporarily storing commands while in transit ([0146]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 with respect to amended claims 1, 12, and 18 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new reference Ki.
Upon further search and consideration, reference Ki was found to teach the added limitation wherein packets contain both a control message and a data message, in much the same manner as the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art could implement the packets and connections contemplated by Ki to achieve the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights