DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s filing this instant application, dated 09/09/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 09/09/2022. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,445,018 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Amendment
Amended claims has been reviewed. The amendments filed in the Response do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Specifically, amended claims do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173 (c).
Claims
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c),
“(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
The Remarks do not show the specific teachings to the specific limitations of the new claims. As seen in MPEP 1453 V. D. New Claims must show specific mappings to those new and amended limitations to the sections of the specification that teach the amended claim limitation,
Example from MPEP 1453 V. D. Amendment of New Claims:
First Amendment (wherein claim 11 was first presented):
Claim 11 (New). A knife comprising a handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has added new independent claim 11. Support for this new claim is found in column 4, lines 26-41, column 5, lines 3-18, and column 6, lines 5-15.
Second Amendment (wherein claim 11 is amended):
Claim 11 (New, amended). A fishing knife comprising a bone handle portion and a notched blade portion.
In the Remarks (supplied on a separate page):
Status: The present application includes pending claims 1-11, with claims 1 and 11 being independent. With this amendment, applicant has amended new independent claim 11 as described below.
Claim 11: Claim 11 is amended to add "fishing" before "knife" and "bone" before "handle". Support for these changes is found in column 4, lines 34-41 and column 6, lines 5-8, respectively.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites the limitation of “the computer program being to be executed by”. This claim limitation is unclear and possibly using verbiage that does aid one to understand the limitation clearly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recited the limitation of,
“the computer program being configured to case the computer to allow the host to recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single storage device by:… the second NVMe command indicating a second logical address range on the LBA basis.”.
This limitation is not found in the cited area given by the Applicant. In fact, the cited area given by the Applicant, Fig. 2 and 5:51 – 6:7, has no mention of first NVMe command let alone a second NVMe command. Furthermore, there is no mention of LBAs in the cited section. Digging further into the specification, no recitation of how the “Obtaining, “Determining”, and “Issuing” steps make the computer allow a host to recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single storage device is found.
Claim 34 has similar issues and is also rejected for those reasons.
Applicant is asked to amend the claims and/or specifically point to where this limitation is taught in the specification.
Claim 22 recites the limitation of,
“the computer program is configured to case the computer to allow the host to recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single SSD.”
This limitation is not found in the cited area given by the Applicant.
Claim 35 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 24 recites the limitation of,
“in a case where the first logical address range is a first range, issue the second NVMe command to a first SSD among the plurality of SSDs; and
in a case where the first logical address range is a second range, issue the second NVMe command to a second SD among the plurality of SSDs.”
The cited area given by the Applicant appears to teach that a first command given to a first address range, (5:63 – 6:7), the second command to a second address and so on. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 37 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 25 recites the limitation of,
“issue, as a second NVMe command, the first NVMe sub-command to a SSD among the plurality of SSDs; and
issue, a second NVMe command, the second NVMe sub-command to a second SSD among the plurality of SSDs.”
The cited area given by the Applicant does not teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 38 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 26 recites the limitation of,
“upon completion of the first NVMe sub-command and completion of the second NVMe sub-command, transmit, to the host, a completion notification indicating that the first NVMe command issued by the host is completed.”
The cited area given by the Applicant does not teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 39 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 30 recites the limitation of,
“the first NVMe command issued by the host is accompanied with a data transmission descriptor, wherein the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to: on the basis of the data transmission descriptor, inform the determined one of the plurality of SSDs of a location in a memory of the host to which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to access in accordance with the second NVMe command.”
The cited area given by the Applicant does not teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 43 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 31 recites the limitation of,
“in a case where the first NVMe command issued by the host is a read command, the location in the memory of the host is a location into which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to transmit a piece of read data in accordance with the read command.”
The cited area given by the Applicant does not teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 44 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 32 recites the limitation of,
“in a case where the first NVMe command issued by the host is a write command, the location in the memory of the host is a location from which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to transmit a piece of write data in accordance with the write command.”
The cited area given by the Applicant does not teach this limitation. Applicant is asked to amend the claim to reflect what is supported.
Claim 45 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 34 recited the limitation of,
“making, by a computer outside of the plurality of SSDs, a host…;”.
This limitation is not found in the cited area given by the Applicant. Furthermore, it is not found how the outside computer is able to “make a host”.
All dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected because of their dependency on the above recited claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which a computer program is stored, the computer program being to be executed by a computer outside of a plurality of solid state devices (SSD)”, and the claim also recites “a central processing unit (CPU) configured to execute the computer program” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 34 recited the limitation of,
“making, by a computer outside of the plurality of SSDs, a host configured to issue Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) commands that are commands based on NVMe standard recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single storage device by:”.
It is unclear as to how a computer can make “a host”. It would appear that the Applicant wishes the computer outside of the plurality of SSDs to have a host recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single storage device by the following steps but it is unclear because of the 112(a) rejections above and lack of written support.
All dependent claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected because of their dependency on the above recited claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 (New Matter)
Claims 21 – 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Applicant is asked to review the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement for the cited issues with the claims above are similarly rejected herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21 – 27, 30 – 40, and 43 – 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asnaashari et al. U.S. Patent No. 9,009,397, hereinafter “Asnaashari”.
Claim 21:
A computer program product comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium in which a computer program is stored, the computer program being to be executed by a computer outside of a plurality of solid state devices (SSD),
Asnaashari teaches the use of a computer with memory that executes a program, (e.g., Asnaashari, 3:1 – 46 & Fig. 1, CPU is “outside” the SSDs 20 and 26 or, also under BRI, computer 10 is “outside” PCIe SSD1- PCIe SSDn, also known as element 26).
the computer including:
a first interface configured to be connected to a host, the host being configured to issue Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) commands, the NVMe commands being commands based on NVMe standard;
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
a plurality of second interfaces configured to be connected to the plurality of SSDs respectively; and
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
a central processing unit (CPU) configured to execute the computer program,
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
the computer program being configured to cause the computer to allow the host to recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single storage device by:
obtaining a first NVMe command issued by the host, the first NVMe command indicating a first logical address range on a logical-block-address (LBA) basis;
Asnaashari teaches the use of commands from the host, (e.g., 3:47 – 4:51 et seq.). The host transmits one command and the CPU divides and attempts to evenly distribute the commands in multiple NVMe sub-commands, (e.g., 8:13 et seq., & Figs. 1 and 4). Asnaashari specifically states that the storage processor 10, and CPU, also acts like a NVMe host for the SSDs 26, (e.g., 5:36 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Asnaashari’s host 12 with the functionality or ability of storage processor 10 since making combinable performing such would result in the predictable result of the components still functioning as intended, also see MPEP 2144.04 V. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965), Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983), or In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
on the basis of the first logical address range, determining which one of the plurality of SSDs performs a process corresponding to the first NVMe command; and
Asnaashari teaches the commands being divided into subcommands and distributed to the corresponding SSDs, (e.g., 8:13 – 64 et seq., & Fig. 4 et seq.).
issuing a second NVMe command to the determined on of the plurality of SSDs, the second NVMe command indicating a second logical address range on the LBA basis.
Asnaashari further teaches multiple commands being divided into multiple sub-commands and distributed to the corresponding SSDs, (e.g., 8:13 – 64 et seq., & Fig. 4 et seq.).
Claim 34 claims similar limitations as claim 21 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 22:
The computer program product of claim 21, wherein the computer program is configured to case the computer to allow the host to recognize the plurality of SSDs as a single SSD.
In view of the multiple 112 rejections and as closely as can be interpreted by the Examiner, Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
Claim 35 claims similar limitations as claim 22 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 23:
The computer program product of claim 21, wherein at least one of the plurality of SSDs includes a Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) endpoint.
In view of the multiple 112 rejections and as closely as can be interpreted by the Examiner, Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
Claim 36 claims similar limitations as claim 23 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 24:
The computer product of claim 21, wherein the computer program is configured to cause the computer to:
in a case where the first logical address range is a first range, issue the second NVMe command to a first SSD among the plurality of SSDs; and
in a case where the first logical address range is a second range, issue the second NVMe command to a second SD among the plurality of SSDs.
In view of the multiple 112 rejections and as closely as can be interpreted by the Examiner, Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
Claim 37 claims similar limitations as claim 24 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 25:
The computer program product of claim 21, wherein the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to:
generate a first NVMe sub-command and a second NVMe sub-command on the basis of the first NVMe command issued by the host;
issue, as a second NVMe command, the first NVMe sub-command to a SSD among the plurality of SSDs; and
issue, a second NVMe command, the second NVMe sub-command to a second SSDE among the plurality of SSDs.
In view of the multiple 112 rejections and as closely as can be interpreted by the Examiner, Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53 et seq.).
Claim 38 claims similar limitations as claim 25 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 26:
The computer program product of claim 25, wherein the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to:
upon completion of the first NVMe sub-command and completion of the second NVMe sub-command, transmit, to the host, a completion notification indicating that the first NVMe command issued by the host is completed.
In view of the multiple 112 rejections and as closely as can be interpreted by the Examiner, Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., Figs. 1 – 4, & 5:54 et seq.).
Claim 27 teaches similar limitations as claim 26 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 39 and 40 claims similar limitations as claims 26 and 27 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 30:
The computer program product of claim 21, wherein
the first NVMe command issued by the host is accompanied with a data transmission descriptor, wherein
the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to:
on the basis of the data transmission descriptor, inform the determined one of the plurality of SSDs of a location in a memory of the host to which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to access in accordance with the second NVMe command.
Asnaashari teaches the sending of specific NVMe commands as stated above. Asnaashari further teaches the use of descriptors which is well known in the art as a type of pointer, (e.g., Fig. 6, & 3:1 – 46, 5:6 – 53, 8:23 - 9:28 et seq.).
Claim 43 claims similar limitations as claim 30 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 31:
The computer program product of claim 30, wherein,
in a case where the first NVMe command issued by the host is a read command, the location in the memory of the host is a location into which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to transmit a piece of read data in accordance with the read command.
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., 9:56 – 10:67, 12:37 – 63, 13:20 – 50).
Claim 44 claims similar limitations as claim 31 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 32:
The computer program product of claim 30, wherein,
in a case where the first NVMe command issued by the host is a write command, the location in the memory of the host is a location from which the determined one of the plurality of SSDs is to transmit a piece of write data in accordance with the write command.
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., 4:1 – 67, 9:56 – 10:67, 12:30 – 37).
Claim 45 claims similar limitations as claim 32 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 33:
The computer program product of claim 30, wherein,
the data transmission descriptor includes a plurality of entries, wherein the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to:
On the basis of an identifier to identify each of the plurality of entries, determine an SSD among the plurality of SSDs to inform the location.
Asnaashari teaches this limitation, (e.g., 4:1 – 67, 5:6 – 53 et seq., 9:56 – 10:67, 12:30 – 37).
Claim 46 claims similar limitations as claim 33 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 41, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asnaashari in view of Tamir et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0012735, hereinafter “Tamir”.
Claim 28:
The computer program product of claim 21, wherein the computer further includes:
an NVMe register configured to store a door bell; and
a memory, wherein
the computer program is further configured to cause the computer to:
in response to the host updating the door bell, fetch the first NVMe command issued by the host and store the second NVMe command into the memory.
Asnaashari teaches the sending of specific NVMe commands as stated above. Tamir teaches storing a doorbell and in response to ringing said one or more doorbells, processing the commands, (e.g., ¶¶ 0029, 0042, 0049, 0055, 0057, 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to combine Tamir with Asnaashari because utilizing doorbells in well known in the art and used to queue commands. “Ringing” the doorbell would lead to the predictable result of the queued command being executed.
Claim 41 claims similar limitations as claim 28 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 29:
The computer program product of claim 28, wherein the computer further configured to cause the computer to:
after storing the second NVMe command into the memory, update a door bell of the determined one of the plurality of SSDs so that the determined one of the plurality of SSDs fetches the second NVMe command from the memory.
Asnaashari teaches the sending of specific NVMe commands as stated above. Tamir teaches storing a doorbell and in response to ringing said one or more doorbells, processing the commands, (e.g., ¶¶ 0029, 0042, 0049, 0055, 0057, 0066). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to combine Tamir with Asnaashari because of similar reasons stated above.
Claim 42 claims similar limitations as claim 29 or have the same teachings disclosed in the cited areas of the prior art, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992