DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rection filed 12/18/2025 for application 18/074,360.
Clams 1, 8-9, and 17-18 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claim 22 is new. Thus claims 1-22 have been examined.
The IDS sent 10/10/2025, 12/15/2025, and 1/29/2026 have been considered.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
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 1-22 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.
Examiner is unable to find support for the limitations describe below:
Independent claims 1 contains the limitation ‘a request.. including(s) a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device.. using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, this first identifier of the first function uniquely associated with the storage device or the network interface device, .. the second storage request including a second identifier of a second function of the device, the second function uniquely associated with the storage device’.
Independent claim 8 contains the limitation ‘ the first request includes a first identifier of a first function of the device, .. the second request including a second identifier of a second function, and to route the second request to a storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device or a network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the network interface device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second function… ;accessing a data from the storage device of the device based at least in part on the first request identifier of the first function; and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function.’
Independent claim 17 recites the limitation ‘a first request … the first request including a first identifier of a first function of a storage device, … sending a second request … the second request including a second identifier of a second function of the network interface device, directed toward the network interface device of the device using the second physical interface of the network interface device; and sending a third request … including a third identifier of a third function of the device, wherein the device is configured to direct the first request toward the storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, wherein the device is configured to direct the second request toward the network interface device of the device using the second physical interface of the network interface device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second function, and wherein a data of the storage device of the device is transmitted by the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function.’
The specification discloses in para [0071] the Request 405 may identify the data stored on the storage device’ which suggests the request contains something such as a logical or physical address to identify the data stored. It does not suggest that the request contains a identifier of a function. It does not suggest using a function identifier to route the request to a storage device or a network interface device.
The specification discloses in para [0094] that data to be written to or from which data is to be read may uniquely identify a particular buffer. It does not detail the request and does not suggest that a request contains the identifier of a function. It does not suggest using a function identifier to route the request to a storage device or a network interface device.
The specification discloses in para [0115] that the request may identify data 805. Thus suggesting, similar to para [0071] suggests the request contains something such as a logical or physical address to identify the data stored. It does not suggest that the request contains a identifier of a function. It does not suggest using a function identifier to route the request to a storage device or a network interface device.
The specification discloses in para [0116] that the request may identify how data 805 of Fig. 8 may be transcoded or otherwise processed. Thus discloses the format of the data that may be stored and then sent out on the network device. However, this identity of how data 805 may be transcoded or otherwise processed does not discloses data transmission protocols thus does not teach ‘wherein a data of the storage device of the device is transmitted by the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function.’ It does not suggest using a function identifier to route the request to a storage device or a network interface device.
The specification discloses in para [0117] that the device may receive request 425 of Fig. 4, identifying the data 805 of Fig 8 may be delivered to client device. Thus suggesting, similar to para [0071] that the request contains something such as a logical or physical address to identify the data stored. It does not suggest that the request contains a identifier of a function. It does not suggest using a function identifier to route the request to a storage device or a network interface device.
Para [0266] of the instant application discloses that a request at a function exposed by the host interface of the device exists. But this does not discloses that the request contains the function identifier. This is instead stating that the system contains an endpoint that exposes a function which may receive a request. But does not describe the format of the request and does not state that the request itself contains a identifier of a function.
Furthermore, regarding claims 18, Examiner is unable to find support for ‘The method according to claim 17,. Wherein: the first request includes the third request; and …”.
Examiner is unable to find support within the specification for the above limitations. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-16, and 18-22 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from respective base claims that have been rejected to and fail to cure the deficiencies of their respective base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites the limitation “a second request to the network interface device”. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and claim 1 recites “a second request received …, the second request including a second identifier of a second function… the second function uniquely associated with the storage device”. First, the “a second request” is improper antecedent basis terminology given it depends from claim 1 that introduces “a second request” that is uniquely associated with the storage device”. Claim 6 appears to be directed to a different “second request” that is to the network interface device”.
It is not clear if “a second request” of claim 6 refers to the “a second request” of claim 1, and if so, how is that possible as applicant argues the request can only be directed to one of the network interface device or the storage device, and as claimed, the “a second request” must be directed to both. Thus the claim is indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner has treated the “a second request” of claim 6 as distinct from the “a second request” of claim 1.
Reasons for Not Applying Prior Art
Regarding claim 18, while the claim stands rejected as being indefinite under 112 (a), no prior art is applied herein below. An updated search failed to identify prior art that teaches ‘The method according to claim 17, wherein: the first request includes the third request; and sending the first request form the host processor to the host interface of the device includes sending the third request from the host processor to the host interface of the device.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bert (Bert US 2024/0020182 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bert teaches A device, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0028]-[0029] that discloses a Memory Subsystem 110 that is a product of manufacture, thus is an example of a device.) comprising a storage device, the storage device including storage for a data, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0228] discloses a processing device 117 that stores data into memory devices 130 to 140 where each memory device is an example of a storage device including storage for data. Examiner notes “a data” is data sent to the storage device, stored in the storage device, or received from the storage device.) a controller to manage access to the storage, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0031] and [0038] that discloses Memory Sub-System Controller 115 manages access to the storage)
and a first physical interface to the device; (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0031] that discloses Host Interface 112. See also Bert [0032], [0072], [0340], and [0355] that discloses the Host Interface 112 connects the Host System A 120 via peripheral bus 125 to the memory sub-system 110 and the connection between Host interface 112 and bus 125 is an example of a first physical interface to the device and may be circuitry thus is a physical interface. )
a network interface device to send the data across a network, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0031] discloses Network Interface 113 that may send data to host 121 through the Network Interface 113. See also Bert [0318] that discloses the network interface may be a network interface device.) the network interface device including a second physical interface to the device (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0029] and [0033] that discloses Network Interface 113 that interfaces with Computer Network 114 that is an example of a second interface to the Memory Sub-System 110. See also Bert [0355] that discloses the functions and operations disclosed may be implemented using circuitry, thus the Network Interface 113 may be a physical interface.)
and a host interface, the host interface to receive a request from a host processor, the request including a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0068] that control messages are routed through Host Interface 112. Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0037]-0038] discloses that the remote hosts such as Host System B 121 may send control request from Network interface 113 to Host interface 112 for processing on the local host system 120. These requests come from Processing Device 128 on Host System B 121, where Host System B 121 is an example of host processors. See also Bert [0047]-[0048] that using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory subsystem 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example , the host system can sign into the memory sub-system to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. Thus the remote host may send a storage protocol request that identifies the request as a request to start a session, generate a namespace, to create a namespace, etc. which is sent to the local host over the host interface. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device.)
wherein the device is configured (Bert [0352] discloses the inventive concepts may be implemented in an apparatus implementing a computer program configured to perform the inventive concepts.) to route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, (Using broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is disclosed if one of the two options (route the request to the storage device and/or the network interface) is disclosed. Bert Figs 1 and 2 and [0029]-[0057] discloses that control and data requests may arrive from the Host System B 121 and are routed to the Storage Device Memory Sub-system 110 at the network interface 113 (using the network interface device, the second interface) based at least in part of the request being a control message containing a protocol element that identifies the request as a specific control message or data message that is a first identifier of a first function.) the first identifier of the first function uniquely associated with the storage device or the network interface device . (Bert [0024]-[0025] discloses control messages are routed through the Network Interface device 114 and routed to the host Interface 112, bypassing the storage devices (memory devices 130 and 140) within the Memory Sub-System 110, thus are uniquely associated with the Network Interface device and not the storage device.)
wherein the network interface device and the host interface are separate, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0029], [0031] and [0033] that discloses Network Interface 113 that is an example of a second interface to the Memory Sub-System 110 and is separate from Host Interface 112 that is an example of a first interface.)
wherein the device and the host processor are part of a system, (Examiner notes the application does not contain an explicit definition for “the host processor”. The instant application does not tie “the host processor” to a physical component such as processor 110. Examiner has interpreted the host processor to be any component that generates IO requests external to the device. Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0300] discloses that the Host System B, includes a Processing Device 128 and a controller 126 that generate IO requests, thus the Host System B 120 is an example of a host processor. The Host System B 121 and Memory Sub-System 110 (the device) are part of a computing system 100.)
and wherein the device is configured to deliver the data stored on the storage device across the network using the network interface device (Examiner notes that the antecedent basis for ‘the data’ is ‘a data’ from earlier claimed ‘a storage device, the storage device including storage for a data’. Thus this limitation is claim a device configured to deliver data from the storage device across the network using the network interface device. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] discloses that the solution delivers storage data stored in the memory system 110 (the storage device) across the Computer Network 114 to Host System B 121 using the Network Interface 113.)
in accordance with a data transmission protocol (Bert [0244] discloses data is transmitted over the network using protocols such as Ethernet or fibre channel which are network protocols (i.e. transmission protocols).) based on a second request received at the host interface from the host processor, (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] discloses the remote system may follow up the first control request with a second control request such as to open a namespace that is a that is an example of a second request received at the host interface for processing by the local host, a step that would facilitates a read request which may be performed based on a namespace per Bert [0096]. Where the read command transfers data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace.)
the second request including a second identifier of a second function of the device, the second function different from the first function of the storage device or the network interface device, the second function uniquely associated with the storage device. (Bert [0122] and [0151] discloses the Host System A may generate commands at specific addresses that relate to a (previously created) namespace that perform read/write/erase operations. Thus the a message from Host System 1 can include a command to read data from the Memory Devices 130 or 140. The protocol element that identifies the request (as a read command to a specific address) is an example of a second identifier of a second function of the storage device or the network interface device, where a read function is uniquely identified with the storage device.)
Regarding claim 6, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Bert further teaches wherein the host interface includes an endpoint exposing the first function to issue a first request to the storage device (Consistent with paragraph [0045] of the instant application, and endpoint may provide access to an identified function exposed or accessible by the device. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and [0029]-[0057] discloses the host may send control messages. The control messages may cause the system to perform control operations such as creating a namespace. The Host Interface 112 receives and processes the control messages per Bert [0037]. Thus Bert exposes a first endpoint (the host interface) to expose a first function (creating a namespace).) and a third function to issue a second request to the network interface device. (As noted in the 112(b) rejection above, for compact prosecution, this “a second request” will be treated as separate and distinct from the “a second request” in claim 1. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and [0029]-[0057] discloses the host may send control messages that can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. A control message to delete a namespace is an example of a third function to issue a second request, where the delete namespace request is made by the Host System B 120 through to the network interface device.)
Regarding claim 8, Bert teaches A method, (Bert [0069] discloses the application is directed to a method to process network messages to access storage of a memory sub-system.) comprising: receiving a first request at a host interface of a device from a host processor, wherein: the first request includes a first identifier of a first function of the device, (Examiner has interpreted a host processor to be a processor that generates IO requests external to the device . Bert Figs. 1 & 2 and supporting paras [0031] [0071] that discloses Network Interface 113 that receives IO requests from Host System B 121 and Host Interface 112 (the claimed network interface) receives IO requests from Host System A 120. Thus both Host System A 120 and Host System B 121 are examples of a host processor. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0068] that control messages are routed through Host Interface 112. Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0037]-0038] discloses that the remote hosts such as Host System B 121 may send control request from Network interface 113 to Host interface 112 for processing on the local host system 120. These requests come from Processing Device 128 on Host System B 121, where Host System B 121 is an example of host processors. See also Bert [0047]-[0048] that using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory subsystem 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example , the host system can sign into the memory sub-system to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. Thus the remote host may send a storage protocol request that identifies the request as a request to start a session, generate a namespace, to create a namespace, etc. which is sent to the local host over the host interface. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device.)
the host interface is configured to receive a second request from the host processor Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] discloses the remote system may follow up the first control request with a second control request such as to open a namespace that is a that is an example of a second request received at the host interface for processing by the local host, a step that would facilitates a read request which may be performed based on a namespace per Bert [0096]. Where the read command transfers data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace.) the second request including a second identifier of a second function, (The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example to open a namespace) is an example of a second identifier of a second function of the storage device or the network interface device.)
and to route the second request to a storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device or a network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the network interface device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second request; (Examiner notes that this limitation is specified by ‘or’ and is met when either the request is routed to the first physical interface, or is routed to the network interface device. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. The second request may be a request to open a namespace. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example to open a namespace) is an example of a second identifier of a second function of the storage device or the network interface device. The control request to open a namespace is routed to the Host System A 120, using the first physical interface based at least in part on the second identifier of the second request (based on the fact that the system is attempting to open the specified namespace, which is based at least in part on the second identifier).
the second function is associated with a storage device or a network interface device; (Examiner notes that this is an conditional limitation specified by ‘or’ and is met when either the request associated with a storage device or a network interface device. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. The second request may be a request to open a namespace, which is a function associated with a storage device as the data identified by the namespace may be for data on a storage device, and thus is associated with a storage device.)
the second function is different from the first function of the storage device or the network interface device; (The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. The first function may be a create namespace and the second function may be a request to open a namespace, thus is different from the first function and is a function of the storage device Memory Subsystem 110 since the storage device is to manage the namespace using meta data. See Bert [0038].)
accessing a data from the storage device of the device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function; (The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. See also Bert [0096[ that discloses reading or writing data is to a particular namespace. Thus Bet will access data from the storge device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function (the namespace in the first request) and transmit the data using the network interface device of the device to Host System B that made the read request.)
and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, (See Bert [0047] and [0096[ that discloses data reads are performed to a particular namespace. Thus Bert will access data from the storge device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function (the namespace in the first request) and transmit the data using the network interface device of the device to Host System B that made the read request. Bert [0091] discloses that the controller 115 (i.e. Memory Sub-System Controller 115) may convert network packets received in the network interface into control messages and data messages into a format for processing by the Host Systems A or B or the Memory Device 130..140 (thus in accordance with a data transmission protocol)).
wherein the network interface device and the host interface are separate, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0030]-[0031] that discloses Network Interface 113 is separate from Network Interface 111.)
and wherein the device and the host processor are part of a system. (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0300] discloses that the Host System A, includes a Processing Device 118 and a controller 116, thus the Host System A 120 is an example of a host processor. The Host System A 120 and Memory Sub-System 110 (the device) are part of a computing system 100.)
Regarding claim 9, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Bert further teaches wherein: the method further comprises receiving a third request at the device from the host processor via the host interface; (Bert Figs. 1 & 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057], most notable [0033] and [0047] discloses the memory system may receive control messages and data requests from external hosts, where a read request is an example of a third request. This request may be received via Host System B 121 (a host processor) via the Network Interface 113 (the host interface).)
and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device includes transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device based at least in part on the third request. (See Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and [0029]-[0057] and [0096[ that data reads may be performed and are performed to a particular namespace. Thus Bert will read data from the storge device based at least in part on the third read request that is associated with a namespace and will transmit the data to the Host System B 121 that made the read request using the network interface device (network interface 113).)
Regarding claim 17, Bert teaches A method, (Bert [0069] discloses the application is directed to a method to process network messages to access storage of a memory sub-system.) comprising: sending a first request from a host processor to a host interface of a device, the first request including a first identifier of a first function of a storage device, (Examiner has interpreted the host processor to be any component that generates IO requests external to the device. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0068] that control messages are routed through Host Interface 112. Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0037]-0038] discloses that the remote hosts such as Host System B 121 may send control request from Network interface 113 to Host interface 112 for processing on the local host system 120. These requests come from Processing Device 128 on Host System B 121, where Host System B 121 is an example of host processors. See also Bert [0047]-[0048] that using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory subsystem 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example , the host system can sign into the memory sub-system to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storge capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc.. See Bert [0047]. Thus the remote host may send a storage protocol request that identifies the request as a request to start a session, generate a namespace, to create a namespace, etc. which is sent to the local host over the host interface. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example to delete a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device. Memory Sub-system 110 is an example of a device.)
the device including the storage device and a network interface device, (Bert Fig. 9 and [0156] discloses Local Storage Device 105 that contains both Controller 115 and Memory Devices 130.. 109 this is an example of a storage device and Network Interface 113 that is an example of a network device).)
sending a second request from the host processor to the host interface device of the device, the second request including a second identifier of a second function of the network interface device, (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0083] discloses the remote system may follow up the first control request with a second control request such as to map a namespace that is a that is an example of a second request received at the host interface for processing by the local host. The protocol element that identifies the details of the map namespace request for a file in the namespace is an example of a second identifier of a second function of the storage device or the network interface device.)
directed toward the network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the network interface device, (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and paras [0029]-[0057] discloses that control requests such as an map namespace would be directed by the Host System B 122 through the Computer Network 114 to the Network Interface 113 for execution by Host System A 120, thus are directed toward the network interface device using the second interface of the network interface device such as the connection from the Network Interface 113 that connects the Network Interface 113 to the Memory Sub-System Controller 115. The first physical interface of the Network Interface 113 may be the connection between the Network Interface 113 and the Computer Network 114. See also Bert [0355] that discloses the functions and operations disclosed may be implemented using circuitry, thus the Network Interface 113 may be a physical interface.)
and sending a third request from the host processor to the host interface device of the device, the third request including a third identifier of a third function of the device (Bert [0047]-[0048] and [0083] discloses the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory subsystem 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace, which is an example of a third request. The protocol element that identifies the namespace to generate is an example of a third identifier of a third function of the storage device or the network interface device.)
wherein the device is configured to direct the first request toward the storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and paras [0029]-[0057] discloses control messages may be sent to the Memory Sub-System Controller (a component of the storage device) for transfer to the Host System A 120 for processing using the Host Interface 112 of the storage device. It directs the delete namespace command based on the delete namespace protocol identifier in the first create namespace request.)
wherein the device is configured to direct the second request toward the network interface device of the device using the second physical interface of the network interface device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second function, (Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and paras [0029]-[0057] and [0083] discloses there may be a second request that is a control message to map a namespace and the device is configured to send the second map namespace command from the Host System B 121 to the Memory Sub-System 110 using the Network Interface 113, the second physical interface of the network interface device, based at least in part on the namespace, the second identifier of the second function of the open namespace command and wherein the Memory Sub-system 110 (the device) directs the control message to Host System A 120 using the second interface of the network interface device such as the connection from the Network Interface 113 that connects the Network Interface 113 to the Memory Sub-System Controller 115.)
and wherein a data of the storage device of the device is transmitted by the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function. (See Bert [0047] and [0096[ that discloses data reads may be performed to a particular namespace. Thus Bert will access data from the storge device based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function (the namespace in the request) and transmit the data using the network interface device of the device to Host System B that made the read request. Bert [0091] discloses that the controller 115 (i.e. Memory Sub-System Controller 115) may convert network packets received in the network interface into control messages and data messages into a format for processing by the Host Systems A or B or the Memory Device 130 (thus in accordance with a data transmission protocol).).
Regarding claim 19, Bert teaches the claim limitations of claim 17 above. Bert further teaches further comprising sending a fourth request from the host processor to the host interface of the device, (Bert Figs. 1, 2, and 9 and paras [0029]-[0057] and [0205]-[0239] there may be an open file request that is a control command sent from the Host System B 121 Processor (host processor) to the Host System A over the host interface 112 for processing where the open file request is an example of a fourth request.) the fourth request directed toward a circuit of the device, (Bert Fig. 9 and paras [0205]-[0239] discloses all requests are directed toward a Bus Switch 251 that may be hardware. Bert [0355] discloses the components of the system (thus including the switch) may be implemented as circuitry.) the circuit internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device. (Bert Fig. 9 and paras [0205]-[0239] discloses the Bus Switch is internal to the device and external to the storage device (local Storage Device 105) and the Network Interface device 112.
Regarding claim 21, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Bert further teaches wherein the network interface device is configured to send the data across the network to a second processor, the second processor separate from the host processor. (Bert [0036] discloses that while Fig. 1 illustrates one remote host system 121, multiple remote host systems can be configured on the computer network 114 to access the storage services of the network-attached storage device (the data). Thus there may be one remote system that is an example of a first processor to process data at the storage system, and there may be another remote system to access data stored on the storage devices (i.e. a second processor) separate from the first remote system.)
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 2, 4-5, 10, 13-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (Bert US 2024/0020182 A1) as detailed in claims 1 and 8 above and further in view of Ree (Ree US 2004/0030754 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Bert further teaches wherein: the device further comprises a buffer connected to the storage device and the network interface device, (Bert Fig. 1 and supporting para [0038] that discloses the memory sub-system controller 115 buffers messages in the local memory 119 for processing by the local host system.)
the buffer internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device; (See Bert Fig. 1 that shows the local memory 119 is a buffer internal to Memory Sub-System 110 (the device) and is separate from the Network Interface 113. )
the storage device is configured to store the data in the buffer; (Bert [0052] discloses the read operations are stored in memory 199, which would include the data read, thus the data from the storage device is stored in the buffer during read operations.)
However, Bert does not explicitly disclose and the network interface device is configured to read the data from the buffer.
Ree, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and the network interface device is configured to read the data from the buffer. (Ree [0056] discloses a shared memory buffer located between the network interface and the storage interface, and a processor. Packets are directly written into the shared buffer. When data is to be transferred from the storage device to the network, the media access control layer (MAC) of the network interface directly reads the packet from the shared buffer and transmits the data onto the network. Thus the MAC layer of Network Interface 113 of Bert would read the data from the buffer in the solution of Bert in view of Ree.)
Bert and Ree are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to supporting a storage device in a network environment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bert and Ree before them, to modify the teachings of Bert to include the teachings of Ree as Ree discloses that the data in the shared buffer may be accessed by the network interface thereby eliminating the need for copying the data and reducing the amount of memory required, thus reducing system cost and complexity.
The motivation to combine Ree into Bert for claims 3-5 are the same as those presented in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Bert further teaches further comprising a circuit to process the data in the buffer, the circuit internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device. (Bert [0308] discloses that memory sub-system controller 115 may be built of hardware including digital circuitry with dedicated logic to perform the operations described, and may be special-purpose logic circuitry. Bert [0037] discloses the Memory Sub-System Controller 115 processes data in the buffer. Bert Fig. 1 discloses the Memory Sub-System Controller 115 is internal to the Memory Subsystem 110 (the device) and is external to the storage device (Memory Devices 130.. 140) and the network interface device (Network Interface 113). )
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Bert further teaches wherein the circuit is configured to transcode the data in the buffer. (Consistent with paragraph [0003] and 0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding a the data to a format acceptable to the recipient. Bert [0091] discloses that the controller 115 (i.e. Memory Sub-System Controller 115) may convert network packets received in the network interface into control messages and data messages into a format for processing by the Host System A Controller or the Memory Device 130..140 and thus transcodes the data in the buffer.)
Regarding claim 10, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Bert further teaches wherein: accessing the data from the storage device of the device based at least in part on the first request includes storing the data in a buffer by the storage device based at least in part on the first request, (Bert [0018] discloses messages received are buffered in random-access memory (i.e. Local Memory 119). Bert [0085], [0096] and [0212] discloses the results (i.e. the data read) is buffered in the local memory 119 by the local storage device in response to the read request which is based on a namespace created by the first request (thus the read request is based at least in part on the first create namespace request).)
the device including the buffer, the buffer connected to the storage device of the device and the network interface of the device, the buffer internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device; (Bert Fig. 1 that shows Local Memory 119 that is part of the device (Memory Sub-System 110), connected to Memory Devices 130..140 (each that is an example of the storage device), connected to the Network Interface 113, is internal to the Memory Sub-System 110 (the device) and external to both the storage device (Memory Devices 130..140) and network interface device 113).
However, Bert does not explicitly teach and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device includes reading the data from the buffer by the network interface device of the device.
Ree, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device includes reading the data from the buffer by the network interface device of the device. (Ree [0056] discloses a shared memory buffer located between the network interface and the storage interface, and a processor. Packets are directly written into the shared buffer. When data is to be transferred from the storage device to the network, the media access control layer (MAC) of the network interface directly reads the packet from the shared buffer and transmits the data onto the network.)
Bert and Ree are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to supporting a storage device in a network environment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Bert and Ree before them, to modify the teachings of Bert to include the teachings of Ree as Ree discloses that the data in the shared buffer may be accessed by the network interface thereby eliminating the need for copying the data and reducing the amount of memory required, thus reducing system cost and complexity.
Regarding claim 13, Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above.
The remainder of claim 13 recites limitations described in claim 4 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 14, Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Bert further teaches wherein processing the data in the buffer using the circuit of the device includes transcoding the data in the buffer using the circuit of the device. (Consistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding a the data to a format acceptable to the recipient. Bert [0091] discloses that the controller 115 (i.e. Memory Sub-System Controller 115) may convert network packets received in the network interface into control messages and data messages into a format for processing by the Host System A Controller or the Memory Device 130..140 and thus transcodes the data in the buffer.)
Regarding claim 22, Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. Bert further teaches wherein the data includes a first format; and transcoding the data in the buffer using the circuit of the device includes substituting a second format for the first format of the data. (Consistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding a the data to a format acceptable to the recipient. Examiner notes that changing data from one format acceptable by the storage device to a second format acceptable by the network device is an example of substituting a second format for the first format of the data. Bert [0091] discloses that the controller 115 (i.e. Memory Sub-System Controller 115) may convert network packets received in the network interface into control messages and data messages into a format for processing by the Host System A Controller or the Memory Device 130..140 and thus transcodes the data in the buffer. Thus Bert teaches substituting a second format (acceptable to the network) for a first format (acceptable to the storage device) of the data.)
Claims 3, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (Bert US 2024/0020182 A1) in view of Ree (Ree US 2004/0030754 A1) as detailed in claims 2 and 10 above and further in view of Trehus (Trehus et al., US 6,963,954 B1).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. However, the combination of … does not explicitly teach wherein the storage device is further configured to modify storing the data in the buffer based at least in part on the buffer reaching a first threshold.
Trehus, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the storage device is further configured to modify storing the data in the buffer based at least in part on the buffer reaching a first threshold. (Trehus column 2 lines 11-22 discloses storing prefetched data in a buffer once the prefetch buffer lower threshold is reached before automatically performing another prefetch. Thus data read from a second prefetch is stored in the buffer based at least in part on the buffer reaching a first threshold of bytes in the buffer read. )
The combination of Bert, Ree, and Trehus are all in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to the field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention, to modify the solution of Bert and Ree that writes data into a buffer to include the address based prefetching of Trehus for storing this data into the buffer, since prefetching speeds up respond time for read and write commands and address based prefetching enables prefetch tuning for applications that request data. This includes incorporating the teachings of Trehus that discloses triggering the prefetch based on how much prior data has been processed, thus avoiding the situation where a prefetch is started but there is no room in the buffer to place the prefetch data as excessively prefetching such as this situation needlessly consumes bandwidth of the memory interface and internal busses. See Trehus Abstract and Column 1 lines 26-30.)
Regarding claim 11, Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein storing the data in the buffer by the storage device based at least in part on the first request includes prefetching the data by the storage device into the buffer based at least in part on the buffer crossing a threshold.
Trehus, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches wherein storing the data in the buffer by the storage device based at least in part on the first request includes prefetching the data by the storage device into the buffer based at least in part on the buffer crossing a threshold. (Trehus column 2 lines 11-22 discloses storing prefetched data in a buffer once the prefetch buffer lower threshold is reached before automatically performing another prefetch. Thus the second prefetch of data by Trehus in the solution of Bert, Ree, and Trehus would store data identified by a namespace in the buffer based at least in part on the buffer reaching a first threshold of bytes in the buffer read, thus the data is stored based at least in part on the first request. )
The combination of Bert, Ree, and Trehus are in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to the field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed to modify the solution of Bert and Ree that writes data into a buffe to include address based prefetching as taught by Trehus for storing this data into the buffer, since prefetching speeds up respond times for read and write commands and address based prefetching enables prefetch tuning for applications that request data. This includes incorporating the teachings of Trehus that discloses triggering the prefetch based on how much prior data has been processed, and avoiding the situation where a prefetch is started but there is no room in the buffer to place the prefetch data as excessively prefetching such as this situation needlessly consumes bandwidth of the memory interface and internal busses. See Trehus Abstract and Column 1 lines 26-30.)
Regarding claim 12, Bert and Ree teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein storing the data in the buffer by the storage device based at least in part on the first request includes pausing a prefetching of the data by the storage device into the buffer based at least in part on the buffer crossing a threshold.
Trehus, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches wherein storing the data in the buffer by the storage device based at least in part on the first request includes pausing a prefetching of the data by the storage device into the buffer based at least in part on the buffer crossing a threshold. (Trehus discloses storing prefetched data read into a buffer in a storage system that accesses data using namespaces, wherein the buffer comprise a prefetch buffer with a upper threshold and prefetching is stopped when the upper threshold is reached [Col 2 Lines 20-28).)
The combination of Bert, Ree, and Trehus are in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to the field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to modify the solution of Bert and Ree that writes data into a buffer to include address based prefetching of Trehus for storing this data into the buffer, since prefetching speeds up responds time for read and write commands and address based prefetching enables prefetch tuning for applications that request data. This includes incorporating the teachings of Trehus that discloses pausing the prefetch when the threshold is reached as excessively prefetching needlessly consumes bandwidth on the memory interface and internal busses. See Trehus Abstract and Column 1 lines 26-30.)
Claims 7, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (Bert US 2024/0020182 A1) as detailed in claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Cosby (Cosby et al., US 2018/0101498 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However Bert does not explicitly teach further comprising a root port.
Cosby, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches further comprising a root port. (Cosby [Title], [Abstract], [0003]-[0008] and [0012] teaches a PCIe switch may implemented as a root port to support a plurality of endpoints including a host central processing unit and system memory including a to the PCIe switch may be connected to a buffer. See also Cosby Fig. 4 and supporting para [0040] that discloses the root port of Cosby would route communications associated with a function to the plurality of endpoints.
Bert and Cosby are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to data storage. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert. Thus combining prior art elements according to known method (the PCIe switch implementation of Cosby into the solution of Bert that supports a PCIe switch) to obtain predictable results (to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output. See Cosby [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. However, Bert does not explicitly disclose a root port. Thus Bert does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the first request at the host interface of the device includes sending the first request to the storage device of the device using a root port of the device.
Cosby, of a similar field of endeavor, further discloses wherein receiving the first request at the host interface of the device includes sending the first request to the storage device of the device using a root port of the device. (Cosby [Title], [Abstract], [0003]-[0008] and [0012] teaches a PCIe switch may implemented as a root port to support a plurality of endpoints including a host central processing unit and system memory including a to the PCIe switch may be connected to a buffer. Thus the solution of Bert that send control requests to the host interface 112 would include send the request to the Memory Subsystem 110 (the storage device) using the Bus Switch 251 as detailed in Fig. 9 of Bert in view of Cosby that discloses a root port to implement a PCIe switch such as the Bus Switch 251 of Bert.
Bert and Cosby are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to data storage. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert. Thus combining prior art elements according to known method (the PCIe switch implementation of Cosby into the solution of Bert that supports a PCIe switch) to obtain predictable results (to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output. See Cosby [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. However, Bert does not explicitly disclose a root port. Thus Bert does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the first request at the host interface of the device includes sending the first request to the network interface device of the device using a root port of the device.
Cosby, of a similar field of endeavor, further discloses wherein receiving the first request at the host interface of the device includes sending the first request to the network interface device of the device using a root port of the device. (Cosby [Title], [Abstract], [0003]-[0008] and [0012] teaches a PCIe switch may implemented as a root port to support a plurality of endpoints including a host central processing unit and system memory including a to the PCIe switch may be connected to a buffer. Thus the solution of Bert in view of Cosby that send control requests received from the Host System B 121 for processing by Host System A via the host interface 112 would receive the request from the Computer Network 114 and send the request to the Bus Switch 251 (i.e. using the root port of the device).
Bert and Cosby are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to data storage. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert. Thus combining prior art elements according to known method (the PCIe switch implementation of Cosby into the solution of Bert that supports a PCIe switch) to obtain predictable results (to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output. See Cosby [0003]).
Regarding claim 20, Bert teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above. B However, Bert does not explicitly teach further comprising transcoding, by the circuit of the device, the data from the storage device of the device for transmission by the network interface device of the device.
Cosby further teaches further comprising transcoding, by the circuit of the device, the data from the storage device of the device for transmission by the network interface device of the device. (Consistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding data to a format acceptable to the recipient. Cosby [0036]-[0037] discloses that the root port will process an endpoint device by pulling the TLP Header and the TLP from the upstream buffer 20 to build a PCIe frame that is sent to the host. Thus PCIe frame sent to the host is an example of transcode data prepared by encoding data to a format that is compatible with the host. Examiner further notes that the antecedent basis for “the data” is “a data” of claim 17 which simply claims “a data of the storage device” where “a data” may be any data from the storage device.)
Bert and Cosby are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to data storage. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert. Thus combining prior art elements according to known method (the PCIe switch implementation of Cosby that requires transcoding into the solution of Bert that supports a PCIe switch) to obtain predictable results (to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output. See Cosby [0003]).
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks Applicant for their claim amendments and remarks of 12/18/2025. They have been fully considered.
General Remarks
Applicant notes on page 7 of their remarks ‘The Office Action includes form paragraph Il 7.06 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 2). The Applicant does not believe that form paragraph ¶ 7.06 is appropriate. According to the Examiner's Note to form paragraph ¶ 7.06, "This form paragraph must be used in all Office Actions when a prior art rejection is made in an application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013". But this patent application does not claim priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013. Therefore, the claims in this patent application should only be subject to interpretation under AIA .
Examiner respectfully notes that the instruction for form paragraph ¶ 7.06 state this form paragraph is mandatory for application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013, that claims priority to, or the benefit of, an application filed before March 16, 2013. However, the Examiner’s Note does not forbid its inclusion and it may be included in the response for any application with an actual filing date on or after March 16, 2013.
Applicant notes on page 8 of their remarks ‘In addition, the Applicant does not believe that it is proper to change the statutory basis between 35 U. S.C. 102 and 103 without the new rejection being a new ground of rejection. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are different statutes, with different rules that are applicable. Changing the rejection from one statutory basis to another changes the applicability of the rejection to the claims, even with the same rationale, and therefore should be a new ground of rejection.
Further, even the M.P.E.P. acknowledges that changing a rejection from 35 U. S.C. § 102 to 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a new ground of rejection, regardless of whether the rationale is changed. According to the M.P.E.P., "[i]f the examiner's answer changes the statutory basis of the
rejection from 35 U. S.C. 102 to 35 U.S.C. 103, then the rejection should be designated as a new ground of rejection" (see M.P.E.P. 1207.03(a) I).‘
Examiner respectfully notes that the Office Action of 9/18/2025 was designated as a Non-Final Rejection. While a new grounds for rejection is improper in a Final Office action, Non-Final Rejections may introduce new grounds of rejection. Thus applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant notes on page 8 of their remarks ‘Since form paragraph ¶ 7.06 is based on what is considered a new ground of rejection in an Examiner' s Answer, the fact that the M.P.E.P. acknowledges that changing a rejection from 35 U.S.C. § 102 to 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a new ground of rejection without reference to the applied rationale, the same interpretation should be applied in an Office Action.
Examiner respectfully notes that the Office Action of 9/18/2025 was designated as a Non-Final Rejection. While a new grounds for rejection is improper in a Final Office action, Non-Final Rejections may introduce new grounds of rejection. Thus applicant’s argument is moot.
Applicant notes on page 8 of their remarks ‘The Applicant notes that M.P.E P. § 1207.03(a) states that changing a rejection from 35 U.S.C. § 103 to 35 U.S.C. § 102, while relying on the same teachings, is not considered a new ground of rejection. But this statement is based on a mis-interpretation of In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 U.S P.Q. 601 (CCPA 1978). In May, the court stated that "lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness" (see May, 574 F.2d at 1089). In other words, the court was saying that a claim that is anticipated is also of necessity obvious, which justified affirming the obviousness rejection. The court in May did not replace a 35 U.S C 103 § rejection with a 35 U.S C § 102 rejection, as implied in M.P.EP 1207.036) 11’
Examiner respectfully notes that the Office Action of 9/18/2025 was designated as a Non-Final Rejection. While a new grounds for rejection is improper in a Final Office action, Non-Final Rejections may introduce new grounds of rejection. Thus applicant’s argument is moot.
Interview Summary
Applicant notes on page 8 of their remarks ‘On November 25, 2025, Ariel S. Rogson, the Applicant's representative, spoke with Supervisory Patent Examiner Vo. The priority claim was discussed. No agreement was reached. Supervisory Patent Examiner Vo was of the opinion that the claims are not entitled to the priority date of the provisional patent application.
Examiner agrees that ‘Supervisory Patent Examiner Vo was of the opinion that the claims are not entitled to the priority date of the provisional patent application’ as was stated during the interview.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
Applicant argues on page 9 of their remarks ‘In responding to the Applicant' s general remarks, the Office Action argues that "M.P.E.P. § 2143.03 simply states 'all of the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight, including limitations which do not find support in the specification as originally filed (i.e., new matter) In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,496 (CCPA 1970). The M.P.E.P. leaves open how the claims are to be interpreted when they are not supported by the specification" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 37-38). But M.P.E.P. 2111 et seq. states that the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and does not say that the "broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification" only applies for claim terms that have written description support in the specification. The Office Action may not apply an interpretation that is unreasonably broad, nor may the Office Action apply an interpretation that is not consistent with the specification. The fact that the Office Action asserts that the features in question are not supported by the specification does not justify interpreting the claim features in any desired manner, without regard to what is reasonable and what the specification says.
Examiner agrees that broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification is appropriate, including when the claims are not supported by the specification. As noted on page 38 of the Non-Final Rejection of 9/18/2025 in response to applicant’s argument (reiterated on page 37 of the response), the claims were interpreted consistent with the specification and correctly anticipated applicants intentions. As noted on page 38 of the response ‘Indeed, as noted by applicant on page 11 of their response of 8/10/2025 the applicant had intended to claim a “second request” and substituted this with the previously claimed “first request”, which is how Examiner had interpreted the unsupported claim for purposes of compact prosecution’. The interpretation applied by the Examiner was well within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specification as Examiner’s interpretation was consistent with applicants probably intended claims based on the specification, and applicant subsequently amended the claims as interpreted by the Examiner.
Applicant argues on page 9 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that "as noted by applicant on page 11 of their response of 8/10/2025 the applicant had intended to claim a 'second request' and substituted this with the previously claimed 'first request', which is how Examiner had interpreted the unsupported claim for purposes of compact prosecution" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 38). But there is a difference between a typographical error and intentionally interpreting the claims in a manner inconsistent with the specification. The former is a mistake: the latter is a willful reading of the claim language that is not consistent with the specification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the response of 9/18/2025 Examiner interpreted the claims consistent with the specification and the examiner correctly anticipated applicants intention that the “second request” should be interpreted as the “first request”.
Applicant argues on page 9 of their remarks ‘In responding to the Applicant' s arguments regarding the priority claim, the Office Action argues that the Applicant is attempting to combine two different embodiments of the provisional patent application (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 40-41), with only one embodiment mentioning an FPGA. But the Office Action quotes the provisional patent application as saying multiple times that "[i]n some embodiments... " Nowhere does the provisional patent application say that these various embodiments are exclusive, and that features described in "one" embodiment are not used in "another" embodiment. Without the provisional patent application excluding the possibility of features of "one" embodiment not being used in
PNG
media_image1.png
9
14
media_image1.png
Greyscale
another" embodiment, the Office Action is applying an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the provisional patent application.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is misrepresenting Examiners comments in the Office Action. The Office Action dated Sept 18,2025, pages 40-41 does not argue that Applicant is attempting to combine two different embodiments of the provision application. Examiner is not applying an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the provision application.
Applicant argues on page 10 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that "[t]he FPGA is described as a higher level protocol terminate-regenerate bridge architecture’. The application does not provide any description of a 'terminate-regenerate bridge architecture'. However, the connection to the host is vaguely described as 'to connect to an SSD Controller and/or a NIC to a host'. This can simply mean that it provides a physical connection" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 41). The Office Action is unreasonably linking the recited FPGA with the connection to the host. The FPGA is described as alternatively being a "terminate-regenerate bridge architecture", which means that it enables connections from the storage device and/or the NIC to the host (the alternative to this would be a "pass-through bridge"). This is not the physical connection (or at least, not just the physical connection). The fact that the FPGA might, in some situations, connect the host with both the storage device and the NIC should be enough to show that the FPGA is not a physical connection.
In addition, the term "FPGA" stands for "Field Programmable Gate Array", and might be replaced with an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an SOC (System-on-a-Chip). In other words, an FPGA is a logic circuit, which would not be used to implement a physical connection.’
Examiner respectfully notes that the applicants argument merely argues that the FPGA is not necessarily a physical connection. Applicant’s arguments do not explicitly explain how the provisional application supports the claim language as amended at the time of their remarks. If anything, Applicant’s arguments state what the provisional application does not teach, meaning the FPGA is not necessarily a physical connection. Examiner was simply arguing in the Office Action what components might provide the physical connection. Applicant is merely stating we should not look to the FPGA for providing the physical connection (which may or may not be a true statement, however it is a statement of what Applicant believes.).
Applicant further argues on page 10 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that "[t]he Host is depicted as connected to the NVMe PCIe storage device without explanation of who or what is 'routing' commands to a specific element of the storage device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 41). The Office Action also argues that the provisional patent application "does not detail of who or what is 'routing' commands, simply that the elements are 'connected"' and that the provisional patent application "does not detail of who or what is 'routing' commands, simply that the FPGA may appear as a NVMe controller" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 42). But given that the FPGA is described as either a "pass-through bridge" or a "terminate-regenerate bridge architecture", the FPGA is responsible for routing commands to the storage device or the NIC.
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant simply concludes, without evidence, that a “pass-through bridge” or a terminate-regenerate bridge architecture” teaches “the FPGA is responsible for routing commands to the storage device or the NIC. MPEP 2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments and Evidence [R-01.2024] states “I. ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY … Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)”.
Examiner notes, that per the Microsoft Dictionary, a pass-through component is an element that moves a set of signals from one element to another without making changes, thus does not teach routing. Examiner further notes that per the Microsoft Dictionary to regenerate a signal is to rewrite it and a regenerator is a repeater where a repeater is a device used to regenerate (rewrite) a signal so that it can be transmitted onward in its original strength and form, thus does not teach routing. Both terms teach recreating the original signal. The terms do not teach routing, and certainly do not teach routing within the claimed limitations ‘the host interface to receive a request from a host processor, the request including a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device, and to route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the request first identifier of the first function, … and wherein the device is configured to deliver the data stored on the storage device across the network using the network interface device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based on a second request received at the host interface from the host processor, the second request including a second identifier of a second function of the device’.
Examiner requests applicant provide explicit evidence that the “pass-through bridge” or a “terminate-regenerate bridge architecture” teaches the claimed limitation of routing within the meaning of the term routing as claimed (i.e. using a first identifier of a first function, etc..).
Applicant further argues on page 10 of their remarks ‘The Office Action states that "the provisional application to the instant application is Serial No. 63/292,421 and notes that Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/292,472 is directed to a medical device and is not relevant to the instant application" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 42; see also Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 43, 44, and 46). The Applicant apologizes for any such typographical errors. But the Applicant notes that it was the Office Action dated February 19, 2025, which stated that "claims 1-7 and 21do not receive the benefit of the 63/292,472 priority date" (see Office Action dated February 19, 2025, page 27): the Applicant simply missed that the Office Action had referred to the wrong provisional patent application serial number.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant intended to recite 63/292,421 and that citing 63/292,472 was in error.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that "Applicant is making a statement [that routing is inherently performed] without any evidence of the inherency" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 43). But the evidence of inherency is the fact that commands intended for the storage device are routed to the storage device, and commands intended for the NIC are routed to the NIC, and that the device knows where to route an individual command based on the PF/VF triggered by the command.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant simply concludes, without evidence, that a FPGA inherently teaches “the FPGA is responsible for routing commands to the storage device or the NIC”. Examiner further notes that the routing may be performed based on any number of means, for example routing may be performed based on an address that identifies a target and does not identify a function to perform at the target location. See the attached Microsoft Dictionary definition of routing and routing table that details routers use routing tables that rely upon addresses to route messages.
Again, Examiner asks Applicant for evidence that the FPGA teaches routing within the context of the claim ‘route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, wherein the network interface device and the host interface’ as claimed at the time of their remarks.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that "[a] Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is simply the name for a generic hardware components that may be programmed in the field. It implies no specific function whatsoever" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 44). While the Applicant might agree that an FPGA, without more description, is just the name for hardware and implies no particular function, this argument ignores the fact that the provisional patent application assigns a particular function to the FPGA: to act as a "pass-through bridge" or as a "terminate-regenerate bridge architecture". This language assigns the FPGA a particular function, and is specific enough to differentiate the provisional patent application from being just any FPGA
PNG
media_image2.png
5
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
’
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants conclusion. Applicant simply concludes, without evidence, that a FPGA that acts as a pass-through bridge or as a terminate-regenerate bridge architecture teaches “the FPGA is responsible for routing commands to the storage device or the NIC”. As noted above, there is no evidence that these components do more than simply replacing an input signal to correct for signal degradation. Examiner has not precluded the fact that the FPGA may act as a pass-through bridge” or as a “terminate-regenerate bridge architectures”. Examiner argues the FPGA as described in the provisional application does not teach the limitation ‘route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, wherein the network interface device and the host interface’ as claimed.
Again, Examiner asks Applicant for evidence that the FPGA that is a pass-through bridge or a terminate-regenerate bridge architecture teaches ‘route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, wherein the network interface device and the host interface’ as claimed at the time of their remarks.
Applicant further argues on page 11 of their remarks ‘The Office Action goes on to argue that the Budruk reference describes endpoints as "at the end of a PCI bus and request a transaction on the bus or complete a transaction sent to them. The attached article by Ravi Budruk does not describe how the requests are 'routed' between a host and two separate components" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 45). The Office Action further argues that the endpoint of the provisional patent application is not described as performing routing (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 45-46). But the Applicant's point was to describe endpoints, not routing. As argued above and previously, routing of commands may be performed by the FPGA.
The Office Action goes on to argue that the provisional patent application "does not
PNG
media_image3.png
9
5
media_image3.png
Greyscale
establish a separate PCIe communication tree, with the SSD Controller acting as an endpoint to one root port of the FPGA and the NIC acting as an endpoint to another root port of the FPGA, which enable the FPGA to request or complete PCIe transactions from the SSD Controller or the NIC"' (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 46). The Applicant was describing the function of a root port. As argued above and previously, routing is performed by the FPGA.’
Examiner respectfully notes that the argument to Budruk is not related to routing and thus not directed to support routing for the claims as amended.
Applicant further argues on page 12 of their remarks ‘The Applicant also notes that, while the Office Action spends several pages responding to the Applicant' s arguments that the claims are entitled to the priority date (and therefore the Bert reference is not available), the Office Action does not state that the application is not entitled to the priority date. Therefore, the claims should now be considered to be entitled to the priority date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/292,421, and Bert should not be available as prior art.
Should the next Office Action assert again that the claims are not entitled to the priority date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/292,421 (thereby justifying any reliance on Bert), such a rejection would be a new ground of rejection not necessitated by any amendment by the Applicant, and would require a non-Final Office Action.’
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees. As Examiner noted in the Non-Final Rejection of 2/19/2025 per MPEP 2152.01 (B) ‘If the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims in the patent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application.’ Applicant is entitled to the effective filing date of the priority documents if and only if this requirement is met.
Applicant continues to amend the claims and the claims continue to incorporate earlier claim mater not supported by the provisional application. Thus the claims are not entitled to the priority date of the U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/292,421 as long as they continue to claim limitations not supported by the provisional application.
Examiner “pages of remarks” was responding to their Applicant’s “pages of remarks”. This response does not change the fact that Applicant’s claims as amended are not supported by the provisional application, which was confirmed by the Examiner’s SPE with the Applicant on the last interview. Applicant is not entitled to the filing date of the provisional application for any claims not supported by the provisional application. A second non-Final Office Action is not required due to the priority date of the invention.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S. C. 112(a)
Applicant argues on page 12 of their remarks ‘Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U. S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Office Action argues that the specification does not provide support for "a request
PNG
media_image4.png
5
11
media_image4.png
Greyscale
including(s) a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier the second storage request including a second identifier of a second function of the device" in claim l, with similar language in claims 8 and 17 likewise rejected (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 3-4). But the specification states that "[a] request received at PF 315 may then be processed by storage device 305, and a request received at PF 320 may then be processed by network interface device 3 10" (see specification, page 8, lines 18-20). Therefore, the request includes the function ID that identifies the particular function.’
Examiner notes that the fact that the network interface device or the network interface device receive requests for processing does not disclose that a single identifier “a first identifier” is used to route the request to a first physical interface or a second physical interface.
In fact, FIG. 3 of the instant application shows any request at PF 315 is already within PF0 of the Storage Device and Application citation does not disclose not routing PFO request to the storage device as they are already at the storage device. Similarly a request received at PF0 320 is already at the network interface device and thus this citation does not disclose routing the request to the network interface device as it is already at the network interface device. See Fig. 3 below of the instant application for convenience:
PNG
media_image5.png
558
653
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues on page 13 of their remarks ‘The Office Action might respond that the request is "received at" a particular PF, and that this does not state that the request "includes" the PF. But the PF is a logical identifier of some sort, specifying the PF to be triggered. The request itself travels from the host to host interface 325, where it is received at the device: all requests are sent from the host to the device via host interface 325. It is at host interface 325 that the request triggers the particular PF, which means that the request includes the PF somewhere in the packet of information that makes up the request.
Examiner respectfully notes it does not follow that “the request includes the PF somewhere in the packet of information that makes up the request” given the host interface transfers the packet. The host could simply transfer the packet based on some other means, such as an address (and not a physical function identifier (i.e. the PF)) in the packet.
Applicant further argues on page 13 of their remarks ‘The Office Action points to ¶¶ 71, 94, 115-117, and 266 as teaching various features, but that these paragraphs do not describe the request as including a function identifier (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 4-6). But the fact that individual paragraphs of the specification might not specifically state that the request includes a function identifier does not demonstrate that the specification does not provide a written description that the request includes a function identifier. That would be like pointing to the windshield of an automobile and arguing that the windshield does not demonstrate that the automobile includes tires. The specification must be taken as a whole: and as a whole, the specification describes, either explicitly or inherently, that the request includes a function identifier.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in the specification that inherently discloses applicants claimed limitations. Applicant agrees that individual paragraphs of the specification do not specifically state that the request includes a function identifier. The application does not inherently disclose a first physical function used to route the request to the storage device or the network interface device. As noted above, some other feature of the packet, such as a target address, may be used to route the request.
Per applicants remark that ‘pointing to the windshield of an automobile and arguing that the windshield does not demonstrate that the automobile includes tires. The specification must be taken as a whole’, Examiner notes that autos may be placed on blocks and thieves have been known to steal tires by placing otherwise functional cars on blocks and removing the tires. Disclosing an auto does not necessarily disclose an auto with tires. If Applicant wishes to claim an auto with a tire, a tire should be disclosed in the specification. They are not inherent to all autos. See the attached Motor Trend Article published Jan 23, 2020 that describes the theft of a 2020 C8 Corvette Wheels that states “No car, no matter how beloved to the auto workers in the city of Detroit, is safe from having its wheels stolen.”
Applicant further argues on page 13 of their remarks ‘The Office Action argues that the specification does not teach that the data may be transcoded based on an identifier of a third function. But page 15, lines 17-22 state that “[r]equest 415 may specify how the data is to be transcoded by circuit 345 of FIG. 3… In response to request 415, circuit 345 of FIG. 3 may transcode the data in buffer 340 of FIG. 3, shown as operation 420" Thus, the specification describes that the data may transcoded based on another request, which, like the first request, would be received at a particular function. Therefore, the request that instructs the transcoding would include its own function identifier for the same reasons as the first request.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While request 415 may specify how data is to be transcoded, this does not mean that request 415 teaches the data may be based on an identifier of a third function. The specification discloses the data in the buffer may be transcoded (step 420) in response to a request 415. The specification does not describe the third request, like the first request, would be received at a particular function. The term “function” is not discussed in paragraphs [0071]-[0074] of the instant application relating to Fig. 4 that incorporate request 415, and 420.
Applicant further remarks on page 13 ‘In rejecting claim 8, the Office Action goes on to argue that "[t]he specification does not discuss any 'function of the storage device of the network interface device'. This would imply the network interface device was within the storage device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 6). The Applicant apologizes for the typographical error, and amends the claim to replace "of" with "or". This makes claim 8 consistent with claim l .
Examiner thanks Applicant for their claim amendments to make claim 8 consistent with claim 1.
Applicant further argues on page 14 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claims 1-21 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). The Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U. S.C. 112(a) be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons detailed above, claims 1-21 are not patentable.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S. C. 102
Applicant further argues on page 14 of their remarks ‘The Applicant notes that this patent application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/292,421, filed December 21, 2021 Bert, on the other hand, has an earliest effective filing date of July 15, 2022. Thus, Bert is available as prior art only if the claims are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/292,421. The Office Action does not indicate that the claims are not entitled to the priority date of December 21, 2021, and therefore should be considered to be entitled to the priority date of December 21, 2021. Therefore, Bert is not proper prior art against the claims of this patent application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully reiterates per MPEP 2152.01 (B) ‘If the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims in the patent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application.’ Applicant is entitled to the effective filing date of the priority documents if and only if this requirement is met. Applicant is not entitled to the effective filing date of the priority documents as this requirement has not been met.
Applicant continues to amend the claims and the claims continue to incorporate earlier claim mater not supported by the provisional application. Thus the claims are not entitled to the priority date of the U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/292,421 as long as they continue to claim limitations not supported by the provisional application. Therefore, Bert is proper prior art against the claims of this patent application
Applicant further argues on page 14 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches a storage device including a first physical interface to the device, a network interface device including a second physical interface to the device, and a host interface, the host interface to receive a request from a host processor, the request including a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device, and to route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, citing Figures 1-2 and ¶¶ 29-57, 68, 72, 318, 340, and 355 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 7-10). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches the first physical interface in that Bert teaches "Host interface 112" and that Bert teaches the second physical interface in that Bert teaches "Network interface 113" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 8). But Host interface 112 of Bert is an interface for the memory sub-system as a whole to communicate with Host System A, and Network interface 113 of Bert is an interface for the memory sub-system as a whole to communicate with Host System B (see, e.g., Bert, Figure l). In other words, both Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert appear to connect the memory sub-system to the host systems. Host interface 112 of Bert does not appear to be an interface of the storage device, which would be part of memory devices 130 and 140 of Bert, and which is not taught by Bert.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claim does not claim the Host interface 112 of Bert is an interface of the storage device, which would be part of memory devices. The claims recited the limitation “a host interface, the host interface to receive a request from a host processor… wherein the network interface and the host interface are separate… .. a second request received at a host interface form the host processor”.
Applicant further argues on page 15 of their remarks ‘Nor does Host interface 112 of Bert appear to connect the storage device to the device or Network interface 113 of Bert appear to connect the network interface device to the device, which the Office Action appears to argue is taught by the memory sub-system (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 7).’
Examiner respectfully notes that applicant appears to be arguing a limitation not claimed. “A device” of the claim comprises a storage device, a network interface device, a host interface. It does not claim a host interface to directly connect the storage device to the device or Network interface 113”. It claims that a request received from the host interface is routed to either the storage device or the network interface, which may be through various components such as Circuit 340 of the instant application, or the Memory Sub-System Controller 115 of Bert.
Applicant further argues on page 15 of their remarks ‘The claim recites that the storage device and the network interface device each have their own physical interfaces, and that the device as a whole has a host interface to connect to a host processor. It does not appear to be reasonable to interpret Host interface 112 of Bert as teaching the recited first physical interface, when the first physical interface is not described as an interface to a host processor, and when the claim recites a host interface connecting the device to a host processor. Similarly, it does not appear to be reasonable to interpret Network interface 113 of Bert as teaching the recited second physical interface, when the second physical interface is not described as an interface to a host processor.
Examiner respectfully notes applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claims do not recite “the claim recites a host interface connecting the device to a host processor. It merely recites a first physical interface, a network interface, and a host interface and notes ‘wherein the network interface device and the host interface are separate’. Furthermore, as shown in Fig. 1 of Bert the Host Interface 112 interfaces with Host System A. Per Bert, [0343] the processing device 118 of Bert Fig. 1 with Host System A may be a processor. Thus Bert teaches a host interface connecting the device to a host processor in Host System A 120.
Applicant further argues on page 15 of their remarks ‘Second, the Office Action argues that the "protocol element" of Bert teaches the recited function. Specifically, the Office Action argues that "[t]he protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device. " (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 9). But Bert describes a "storage protocol" as "internet small computer systems interface (iSCSI), fibre channel (FC), fibre channel over ethernet (FCoE), network file system (NFS), and server message block (SMB), or another protocol" (see, e.g., Bert, ¶ 31; see also Bert, ¶¶ 46 and 74). In other words, a “protocol”, as used in Bert, does not appear to identify a particular function of a device (such as a storage device or a network interface device. Instead, a "protocol" of Bert appears to be a language for communicating between devices (such as host processor and storage device).
Nor does a "protocol" of Bert appear to, in and of itself, identify any particular function of the device to which a request is directed using the protocol. According to Bert:
Using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory sub-system 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example, the host system can sign into the memory subsystem to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc. (see Bert, Il 47).
But if the same protocol is used "to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, [and] to set security attributes", each of which would appear to be a distinct function, then the protocol does not appear to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device.
Further, for the "protocol" of Bert to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device, Bert would necessarily have to use different protocols for communicating with the storage device and with the network interface device. Nowhere does
Bert appear to teach (or even suggest) that different protocols are always used for communicating with the storage device vs. the network interface device.’
Examiner notes that the “protocol element” of Bert and is not the “protocol” of Bert. Applicant has conflated the two terms. A protocol is different from a “protocol element”. A protocol element may be a subset of a protocol, such as a data field. As noted in the office action ‘See Bert [0047]. Thus the remote host may send a storage request using a network protocol and may use a data field in the request to identify the request as a request to start a session, generate a namespace, to create a namespace, etc. which is sent to the local host over the host interface. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device.)’ Thus the field within the request that is the “protocol element” teaches the recited function. The given protocol element may be sent over a wire using a protocol (a language for communicating between devices such as host processor and storage device).
Applicant further argues on page 16 of their remarks ‘To help emphasize this point, the Applicant hereby amends the claim to recite that the function identifiers are associated with the storage device or the network interface device. Support for this amendment may be found in the specification at, for example, FIG. 3 and the accompanying description, which show that the PFO as exposed by host interface 325 maps to PFO of storage device 305, whereas PF2 as exposed by host interface 325 maps to PFO of network interface device 310. Each of functions PFO and PF2 is uniquely associated with one of the storage device or the network interface device. Since the protocol of Bert does not appear to be uniquely associated any specific device of the memory sub-system, the protocol of Bert does not appear to teach the recited function identifier.’
Examiner thanks Applicant for their claim amendments. However, Examiner notes that while it may be true that the storage device and network interface have separate function identifiers (PF0 315 for the storage device and PF0 320 for the network interface device), it is not true the specification states the first identifier of the first function is uniquely associated with one of the storage device or the network interface device. Applicant is arguing a limitation not supported by the specification.
Applicant argues on page 17 of their remarks ‘Third, the Office Action argues that the recited host interface is taught by Host interface 112 of Bert (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 8-9). But the Office Action has already argued that Host interface 112 of Bert teaches the recited first physical interface (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 8). It does not appear proper for two different features of the claim to be rejected based on a single teaching of the prior art, particularly where the two features are facially distinguishable (the first physical interface being an interface between the storage device and the device, and the host interface being an interface between the device and a host processor).’
Examiner respectfully notes applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claims do not recite “the first physical interface being an interface between the storage device and the device”. Regarding “the first physical interface, the claim recites “a first physical interface to the device.. the device is configured to route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface”. Thus any physical interface that is capable of routing request to the storage device or the network interface is an example of a first physical interface. The claims do not recite three interfaces. It merely recites a first physical interface, a network interface, and a host interface and notes ‘wherein the network interface device and the host interface are separate’.
The first interface may be the host interface as claimed, given the Host Interface 112 of Bert interfaces with the host and the Memory Subsystem 110 routes (sends) the request to the storage device using the Host Interface 112 and may also forward/send/route requests to the Network Interface 112.
Applicant further argues on page 17 of their remarks ‘Fourth, the Office Action also does not appear to give proper consideration to the claim language that says that the device is configured "to route the request to the storage device using the first physical interface or the network interface device using the second physical interface based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function". While the Office Action argues that "[u]sing broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is disclosed if one of the two options (route the request to the storage device and/or the network interface) is disclosed" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 9), the cited portions of Bert appear to describe communications between the hosts and the memory sub-system, and not between the memory sub-system and either the storage device or the network interface device.’
Examiner notes that Applicant is arguing a limitation not recited in the claims. The claim does not recited that routing is “selecting either the storage device or the network interface device” as the target, Applicant is arguing that routing is a decision of selecting one of two paths for transmitting a request. The claim recites the term “or” and does not recite the term “either”. Sending data to storage device or the network interface device could include sending it to both devices as the concept of both A and B incorporates A or B, and it would include sending the data to just the storage device, or just the network interface device.
Applicant further argues on page 17 of their remarks ‘The Office Action argues that "Examiner notes the application does not contain an explicit definition for 'the host processor'. There is no antecedent basis in the claims, and the instant application does not tie 'the host processor' to a physical component such as processor 110." If the Office Action is arguing that the term "host processor" lacks antecedent basis, this would be more properly subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). But in any event, there is antecedent basis for "the host processor" in line 6, which recites "a host processor".
On the other hand, if the Office Action is attempting to argue that the term "host processor" should be understood more broadly than to refer to the processor of a host system, then the Office Action is applying an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claims. The term "host processor" would normally be understood to mean "a processor of a host". To interpret "host processor" to simply mean any processor, including processors located within the device
(or the memory sub-system of Bert) would appear to be an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim. And since the only "host processor" described in the specification is processor 110, the equivalence of "host processor" as recited in the claim to processor 110 of the specification is reasonable.’
Examiner notes the office action has interpreted the host processor to be any component that generates IO requests external to the device. That external entity would be an example of a host. Thus Examiner’s interpretation would be consistent with Applicant’s interpretation. Bert Fig. 1 and supporting paras [0300] discloses that the Host System B, includes a Processing Device 128 and a controller 126 that generate IO requests, thus the Host System B 120 is an example of a host processor. The Host System B 121 and Memory Sub-System 110 (the device) are part of a computing system 100.). Examiner did not interpret the host processor to include processors located within the device as Applicant claims.
Applicant argues on page 18 of their remarks ‘The claims also recite that both requests are received at the host interface. In other words, both the request that is routed to the storage device or the network interface device, and the second request, which triggers the transmission of data stored on the storage device using the network interface device, are both received at the host interface. Any argument that Bert teaches receiving requests from Host system B via Network interface 113 would appear to be irrelevant: by arguing that Host interface 112 of Bert teaches the recited host interface, the Office Action appears to acknowledge that the recited host interface is not taught by Network interface 113 of Bert.’
Examiner respectfully notes applicant is arguing a limitation not recited in the claims. Claim 1 does not recite a second request which triggers the transmission of data stored on the storage device using the network interface device.
Applicant further argues on page 18 of their remarks ‘Fifth, the Office Action argues that "[w]here the read command transfers data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 11). But nowhere does the Office Action appear to argue that the "second request to open a namespace" originates from Host system A (which is the host system of Bert that is connected to Host interface 112 of Bert).’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claim recites the limitation “the host interface is configured to receive a second request from the host processor”. The claim does not recite the limitation that the ‘”second request to open a namespace” originates from Host system A. The claim also does not cite the limitation “the host system that is directly connect to the Host interface 112. It may be indirectly connected.
Furthermore Host System A is not the only Host System of Bert, as applicant seems to argue. Bert also discloses Host System B.
The office action on pages 8 and 9 discloses that per Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and supporting paras [0029]-[0057] ad [0068] control messages are routed through Host Interface 112 from remote hosts such as Host System B 121 and Host Interface 112 receives a second request from Host System B 121 (the host processor). The control message may include sending commands to generate a namespace, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace and to set security attributes. These commands are sent to Host System A through the host interface for processing.
Additionally, Applicants argument conflicts with Applicants own remarks from page 14 of their remarks that states “both Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert appear to connect the memory sub-system to the host systems.”
Applicant further argues on page 18 of their remarks ‘Further, a request to "open a namespace" in Bert would appear to be distinguishable from a read command in Bert, and therefore would not "transfer[] data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace'
PNG
media_image6.png
28
14
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully notes applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claim recites the limitation ‘and wherein the device is configured to deliver the data stored on the storage device across the network using the network interface device. The office action further notes the antecedent basis for “the data” is “a data” from earlier claimed “a storage device, the storage device including storage for a data’. Thus this limitation is claiming a device configured to deliver data form the storage device across the network using the network interface device. The claimed “the data” may be any data from “a storage device” based on a second, third, or fourth request received at the host interface from the host processor. Thus once Host System B generates a namespace (a first request) it may then open the namespace (a second request) and follow that up with a read command that will transfer data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the host System B 121 across the network using the network interface 113 based on the first request (create namespace), the second request (pen a namespace), and a third request (a read command). Examiner notes you must open a namespace to perform a read, thus the read is performed “based on” both the first and second request.
Applicant further argues on page 18 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentable under 35 U.S C 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim I is allowable, as are dependent claims 2-7 and 21
PNG
media_image7.png
2
2
media_image7.png
Greyscale
’
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons detailed in the rejection and remarks above.
Applicant further argues on page 18 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 6, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches that the host interface includes an endpoint exposing the first function to issue a first request to the storage device and a third function to issue a second request to the network interface device, citing Figures 1-2 and ¶¶ 29-57 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 12). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, the Office Action argues that "Bert exposes a first endpoint (the host interface) to expose a first function (creating a namespace)" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 12). But the Office Action again rejects multiple features of the claims that are recited as distinct based on a single feature of Bert: in this case, both the host interface and the endpoint are rejected as taught by Host interface 112 of Bert. The claim recites that the host interface includes the endpoint: the claim does not recite that the host interface is the endpoint. Note that the host interface as recited in claim 1 includes features not recited as part of the endpoint, and therefore should be understood as part of the host interface but not part of the endpoint. The rejection therefore does not appear to be proper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that claim 6 recites “the host interface includes an endpoint” and claim 6 depends from claim 1 that claims “A device, comprising” thus is open-ended and the listed elements may include other elements. Thus applicants argument “ the host interface as recited in claim 1 includes features not recited as part of the endpoint, and therefore should be understood as part of the host interface but not part of the endpoint” is not persuasive.
As noted in the office action ‘Consistent with paragraph [0045] of the instant application, an endpoint may provide access to an identified function exposed or accessible by the device. Bert Figs. 1 and 2 and [0029]-[0057] discloses the host may send control messages. The control message may cause the system to perform control operations such as creating a namespace. The Host Interface 112 receives and processes the control messages per Bert [0037]. Thus Bert exposes a first endpoint (the host interface) to expose a first function (creating a namespace).’ Applicant states the claim includes an endpoint. However the instant application does not explicitly define what an “endpoint” is. Applicants remarks fail to describe or define an endpoint and do not provide an argument while an endpoint may not be a component that provides access to an identified function accessible by the device, which is something the Host Interface 112 performs by processing control messages.
Applicant further argues on page 19 of their remarks ‘As discussed above, the host interface connects the device to the host processor. Further, in rejecting parent claim l, the Office Action analogizes the host interface to Host interface 112 of Bert (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 8-9). But Host system B of Bert appears to communicate with the memory sub-system only through Network interface 113 of Bert. Therefore, any discussion about functions that allow Host system B of Bert to communicate with memory sub-system do not appear to be relevant to the claim.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argument conflicts with Applicants own remarks from page 14 of their remarks that states “both Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert appear to connect the memory sub-system to the host systems.”
Furthermore, Applicant is claiming a limitation not recited in the claims. The claims do not recite a limitation that a second host such as Host system B has multiple (direct) communication channels to the memory sub-system. Host system B may communicate indirectly with Host System A through the Host interface 112, and communicate directly with the Memory Sub-System 110 using the Network Interface as Applicant has noted on page 14 of their remarks.
While Host system B directly connects to the Network Interface 113, it also connects to the Host interface 112 when processing Control Messages 133. Supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0068] notes control messages are routed through Host Interface 112 from remote hosts such as Host System B 121 to the Host Interface 112 where control messages 133 manage and/or administrate the storage capacity of the memory sub-system. This path is shown in Fig. 2, and is highlighted in yellow below:
PNG
media_image8.png
497
625
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues on page 19 of their remarks ‘For example, the Office Action argues that "[a] control message to delete a namespace is an example of a third function to issue a second request, where the delete namespace request is made by the Host System B 120 through to the network interface device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 12). But if Host system B of Bert is making the "delete namespace request" through the network interface device (which appears to be the sole path for Host system B of Bert to communicate with the memory sub-system of Bert), then any function triggered by Host system B of Bert is exposed by the network interface device, and not by the host interface, as claimed
PNG
media_image2.png
5
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Host system B directly connects to the Network Interface 113, it also connects to the Host interface 112 when processing Control Messages 133. Supporting paras [0029]-[0057] and [0068] notes control messages are routed through Host Interface 112 from remote hosts such as Host System B 121 to the Host Interface 112 and the network interface device is not the sole path for Host system B to communicate with the Host Interface 112 that is a part of the memory sub-system of Bert as argued.
Again, Applicants argument conflicts with Applicants own remarks from page 14 of their remarks that states “both Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert appear to connect the memory sub-system to the host systems.”
Applicant further argues on page 19 of their remarks ‘The Office Action might have been attempting to argue that the memory sub-system of Bert may receive a request from Host system A through Host interface 112 of Bert, which triggers data to be sent to Host system B. But Bert does not appear to teach the concept that a request sent through Host interface 112 might trigger data to be transmitted across Network interface 113.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is claiming a limitation not recited in the claim. The claim does not recite the term “trigger” and does not claim a request sent through the Host interface might trigger data to be transmitted across the Network Interface Device.
Bert may receive a control request from Host System B that is routed through Host interface 112 of Bert (that was first received via the Network Interface 113). Bert may communicate a read command from Host system B through the Network Interface and send the read data from the storage device to Host System B.
Applicant further argues on page 19 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 6 is patentable under 35 U.S C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 6 is allowable.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claim 6 is patentable over Bert.
Applicant argues on page 19 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 8, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches receiving a first request at a host interface of a device from a host processor, wherein the first request includes a first identifier of a first function of the device, that the host interface is configured to receive a second request from the host processor, the second request including a second identifier of a second function, and to route the second request to a storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device or a network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the network interface device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second function, accessing a data from the storage device of the device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, and that the network interface device and the host interface are separate, citing Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶ 29-57, 68, 71 and 96 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025,pages 12-17). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, the Office Action does not appear to identify any specific features of Bert as teaching that the storage device and the network interface device each include a physical interface. The only apparent discussion about these features in the rejection is where the Office Action argues that "[t]he control request to open a namespace is routed to the Host System A
120, using the first physical interface based at least in part on the second identifier of the second request (based on the fact that the system is attempting to open the specified namespace, which is based at least in part on the second identifier)" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 14-15). But there is only one apparent "interface" to Host system A of Bert: specifically, Host interface 112 of Bert. But this interface appears to enable communication between Host system A of Bert and the memory sub-system: Host interface 112 of Bert does not appear to be an interface to either the storage device or the network interface device as claimed
PNG
media_image2.png
5
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further notes applicant is arguing a limitation not recited in the claims. The claims do not recite “an interface to either the storage device or the network interface device”.
Examiner further notes, per [0032] of Bert ‘[0032] The memory sub-system 110 further includes a host interface 112 for a computer memory bus or a computer peripheral bus 125 connectable to a local host system 120 having a memory controller 116 and a processing device 118.’. The Host Interface 112 is a physical component (i.e. a physical interface) that connects peripheral bus 125 connected to a host to the Memory-Subsystem 110 that contains the Memory Device 130 and/or Storge Capacity 143 and a Network Interface 113. Thus enables communication to the storge devices (memory Devices 140 and 130) or the Network Interface 113 through the Memory Sub-system Controller 115, shown in Fig. 1. And detailed in [0030]-[0045] of Bert.
Applicant further argues on page 20 of their remarks ‘It is worth noting that Network interface 113 of Bert enables the memory sub-system of Bert to communicate with Host system B. Network interface 1 13 of Bert does not appear to be a physical interface of either a storage device or a network interface device for the memory subsystem of Bert to communicate with the network interface device. Similarly, Host interface 112 of Bert enables the memory sub-system of Bert to communicate with Host system A: Host interface 112 of Bert does not appear to be a physical interface of either a storage device or a network interface device.
Examiner Respectfully disagrees. The Network interface 113 of Bert is a component of the Memory Sub-System, 110 that is a physical system. See Bert [0355] that discloses the functions and operations of the invention can be implemented using special-purpose circuitry such as application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) or field-programmable gate array (FPGA) using hardwired circuitry. Thus the components of the memory system, including the network interface are physical and the Network interface 113 is an example of a physical interface.
Applicant argues on page 20 of their remarks ‘The claim also recites that the storage device and the network interface device each have their own physical interfaces, and that the device as a whole has a host interface to connect to a host processor. The Office Action only appears to argue that Bert teaches two distinct interfaces (Host interface 112 and Network interface 113). It does not appear to be reasonable to interpret two features of Bert to be argued as teaching three distinct features of the claim.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claims do not recite a “third interface”. The claims recite a host interface, a first physical interface, and a network interface device, … wherein the network interface device and the host interface are separate. The first physical interface may be a host interface or a network interface given both are physical interfaces.
Applicant further argues on page 21 of their remarks ‘Second, the Office Action argues that the "protocol element" of Bert teaches the recited function. Specifically, the Office Action argues that "[t]he protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 13). But Bert describes a "storage protocol" as "internet small computer systems interface (iSCSl), fibre channel (FC), fibre channel over ethernet (FCoE), network file system (NFS), and server message block (SMB), or another protocol" (see, e.g., Bert, ¶ 31; see also Bert, ¶¶ 46 and 74). In other words a “protocol”, as used in Bert, does not appear to identify a particular function of a device (such as a storage device or a network interface device. Instead, a "protocol" of Bert appears to be a language for communicating between devices (such as host processor and storage device).
Nor does a "protocol" of Bert appear to, in and of itself, identify any particular function of the device to which a request is directed using the protocol. According to Bert:
Using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory sub-system 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example, the host system can sign into the memory subsystem to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc. (see Bert, 11 47).
But if the same protocol is used "to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, [and] to set security attributes", each of which would appear to be a distinct function, then the protocol does not appear to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device.
Further, for the "protocol" of Bert to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device, Bert would necessarily have to use different protocols for communicating with the storage device and with the network interface device. Nowhere does Bert appear to teach (or even suggest) that different protocols are always used for communicating with the storage device vs. the network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is reiterating an argument made on page 15 of their remarks that has been addressed above.
Applicant argues on page 22 of their remarks ‘Third, the Office Action also does not appear to give proper consideration to the claim language that says that the device is configured "to route the second request to a storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device or a network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the network interface device". The Office Action argues about communications between the Host systems and the memory sub-system in Bert: but these communications are not between the memory sub-system and either the storage device or the network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is claiming a limitation not recited in the claim. The claim recites routing the request to a first physical interface or a network interface. The claim is met if the request is routed to one of the two interfaces or to both. The claim does not recite “either the storage device or the network interface device” and does not recite routing the request to one and only one interface.
Applicant further argues on page 22 of their remarks ‘Fourth, the Office Action appears to argue that Host system B of Bert may send a control request, which may be forwarded to the Host system A for local processing (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 14-15). But Bert explicitly states that "[t]he memory sub-system 110 is configured to provide the control messages through the host interface 112 to the local host system 120 for processing without providing other messages, such as data messages, to the host interface 112. (see Bert, ¶¶ 37; emphasis added). Since the claim recites transmitting the data [accessed from the storage device] using the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function (which was received via the host interface), the claim recites that a request received at the host interface results in data being transmitted via the network interface device. Since Bert apparently is clear that only control messages -- and not data—received from Host system B via the network interface are passed to Host system A via the host interface, Bert does not appear to teach the features of the claim
PNG
media_image9.png
5
2
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In addition, the routing of control messages in Bert does not appear to involve accessing any data from a storage device or transmitting any data via a network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is making arguments that are simply not true. First, para [0037] of Bert discloses that some (but not all) control messages are separated and sent to the local host system 120 without providing other messages as data messages to the host interface. Secondly, Host system B may make requests to read data from the storage using namespaces (thus based on the first identifier of the first function. The claims recite the limitations “a data from the storage device” and “transmitting the data using the network interface device”. Accessing “a data” may be from a third command such as a read command as Bert has disclosed, and Examiner notes in the office actions. Furthermore, “a data” may be metadata relating to the namespace configuration.
Applicant appears to be arguing a limitation not claimed, that the data is accessed from the storage device based on the second function, which is not claimed.
Applicant further argues on page 22 of their remarks ‘Fifth, the Office Action argues that "[w]here the read command transfers data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 14). But since the Office Action argues that Network interface 113 of Bert teaches the recited host interface (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 12-13), any data being received at Host system B is received at the same interface as the request, and therefore does not teach (or even suggest) that a request received at one interface may trigger data being transmitted via another interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action does not argue that Network interface 113 of Bert teaches the recited host interface (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 12-13). The office action date Sept 18, 2025 pages 12-13 teaches IO requests from Host System B 121 that may be control messages that are to be processed by Host System A 120 will be received a host interface of a device (Host interface 112) from a host (Host System B). See also the office action dated Sept 18, 2025 pag3 14 that disclose “The control request to open a namespace is routed to the Host System A 120, using the first physical interface”, and where the first physical interface is the host interface that is connected to Host System A. The office action then goes on to note that a third request may be a read request which transfers data from the storage device (based on the first request that opens a namespace) to the Host System B using the Network interface.
Applicant further argues on page 22 of their remarks ‘Further, a request to "open a namespace" in Bert would appear to be distinguishable from a read command in Bert, and therefore would not "transfer[] data from the Memory Sub-system 110 (the memory device) to the Host System B 121 across the network using the network Interface 113 based on the second request to open a namespace"
PNG
media_image10.png
5
2
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, a third request may be a read request, which may be separate from any control requests relating to namespaces.
Applicant further argues on page 23 of their remarks ‘Sixth, in rejecting claim 8, the Office action appears to analogize the host interface and the network interface device recited in the claim to Network interface 113 and Host interface 112 of Bert, respectively. This interpretation is inconsistent with that applied in rejecting claim l, where the host interface and the network interface device recited in the claim were analogized to Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert, respectively: that is, the roles of Host Interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert are swapped between the rejections of claims I and 8. This change does not appear to be proper, as the functions of the host interface and the network interface device recited in claims I and 8 are consistent.’
Examiner respectfully notes, as detailed above, in response to applicants Fifth argument to claim 8, the Office Action does not argue that Network interface 113 of Bert teaches the recited host interface, and the Host Interface 112 teaches the network interface.
Furthermore, even if Applicant’s claim is correct, claim 8 does not depend from claim 1 and claim 8 may use different interpretations of Bert based on the different recited claim limitations of claim 8.
Applicant further argues on page 23 of their remarks ‘Seventh, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches that "Network Interface 113 is separate from Network Interface 111" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 17). But Network interface 111I is part of Host system B in Bert: it does not appear to be part of the memory sub-system, like both the host interface and the network interface device recited in the claim.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claims do not recite a “memory system”. At most they recite “the device and the host processor are part of a system”.
Examiner further notes that the “network interface” is a component of a method claim whose only required limitation relating to it ” is “transmitting the data using the network interface device” and is not required to be executed on the memory sub-system. The first two references to a network interface device within claim 8 are based on a “or” limitation, thus the network interface device is not necessarily required for those first references. However, even here, the network interface device is not required to be a component of any possible “memory sub-system” not claimed such as device 120 of the instant application. Furthermore, the device of claim 6 could be the computing system 100 of Fig. 1 of Bert that may be a laptop computer.
Furthermore, Applicant does not argue that the cited prior art of Bert [0030]-[0031] does not teach the claimed limitation of a network interface device and a host interface device being separate from one another per applicants interpretation of the host interface and the network interface expressed in their “Sixth, in rejecting claim 8” comments. See the relevant paragraphs of Bert below that discloses these interfaces are separate:
[0030] ‘In FIG. 1 , the memory sub-system 110 is configured as a product of manufacture, usable as a component installed in a computing device. The memory sub-system 110 has a network interface 113 controlled by a memory sub-system controller 115 to communicate with a remote host system 121 over a computer network 114.
[0031] For example, the remote host system 121 can be configured with a processing device 128 (e.g., a microprocessor, a CPU), a memory controller 126, a network interface 111, and other components (e.g., random-access memory, sensors, and/or user interfaces). Instructions executed in the processing device 128 can be programmed to use the network interface 111 to access the storage capacity of the memory sub-system 110 using a storage protocol, such as internet small computer systems interface (iSCSI), fibre channel (FC), fibre channel over ethernet (FCoE), network file system (NFS), and server message block (SMB), or another protocol.
Applicant further argues on page 23 of their remarks ‘Eighth, the Office Action argues that "[c]onsistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding the data to a format acceptable to the recipient" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 16). First, ¶ 3 of the specification is background discussion, and Il 33 1 is a single, specific embodiment of the disclosure. Neither of ¶¶ 3 or 331 of the specification should be understood as limiting the meaning of "transcoding".
Examiner does not argue that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] limit the meaning of transcode. Instead Examiner argues that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] provide one example interpretation of the term. Other interpretations may also be included for this term. The definitions in paras [0003] and [0031] of the instant application should not be “understood as limiting” the meaning of transcoding. However, they do provide insight into one or more means of interpreting the terms. For example para [0003] states “the content may be transcoded (that is, encoded in a format acceptable to the recipient)”. Thus transcoding may be taking a message and encoding it into a format acceptable to the recipient, that may include the example where a sender may transcode the message into a network format acceptable to the receiving host that is accessed across the network.
Applicant further argues on page 23 of their remarks ‘Second, the specification describes transcoding as changing the format of the data (see, e.g., specification, page I l, lines 19-28), whereas Bert is concerned with the packetizing of the data: the data itself does not appear to be changed in Bert. Third, since the claim does not recite "transcoding", the argument presented in the Office Action does not appear to be relevant to the claim.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees.. Bert [0091] discloses “The internal processor is further configured to convert response messages 155 into data packets for transmission by the network interface 113 to a remote host system 121.” . Converting a packet is changing a packet format into a format acceptable to the remote host. Thus Bert transcodes the data in the buffer and Bert teaches substituting a second format (acceptable to the network) for a first format (acceptable to the storage device) of the data.
Applicant further argues on page 23 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 8 is patentable under 35 U.S C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 8 is allowable, as are dependent claims 9-16.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claims 8 and dependent claims 9-16 are patentable.
Applicant further argues on page 24 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 9, argues that Bert teaches receiving a third request at the device and transmitting the data using the network interface device of the device based at least in part on the third request, citing Figures 1-2 and ¶¶ 29-57 and 96 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 17). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office Action argues that Bert teaches that "Bert will read data from the storge device based at least in part on the third read request that is associated with a namespace and will transmit the data to the Host System B 121 that made the read request using the network interface device (network interface 113)" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 17). But the Office Action appears to explicitly acknowledge that that "the read request [is received] using the network interface device (network interface 113)" In rejecting parent claim 8, the Office Action appears to argue that the host interface and the network interface recited in the claim are taught by Network interface 113 and Host interface 112 of Bert, respectively. Aside from this interpretation of these features being contrary to the interpretations presented in rejecting claim l, the overall operation described in the claim is for a request received via the host interface to result in data being transmitted via the network interface device. In Bert, a read request that results in data being transmitted to Host system B would appear to be solely because Host system B of Bert sent a read request via Network interface 113 : that is, only one interface of Bert is involved.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed above, in response to applicants Fifth argument to claim 8, the Office Action does not argue that Network interface 113 of Bert teaches the recited host interface, and the Host Interface 112 teaches the network interface.
As noted on page 13 of the office action transmitting the data using the network interface device of claim 8 is transferring data from Network Interface 113 to the Host Interface 112 via Control Messages 133 to Host System A 120, as the first message is to manage the namespace used by a third message to read a namespace. Thus it involves more than one interface.
Applicant further argues on page 24 of their remarks ‘Nevertheless, in the interest of expediting examination, the Applicant hereby amends the claim to recite that the third request is received at the device from the host processor using the host interface. Support for this amendment may be found in the specification at, for example, page 49, line 15, through page 50, line 4, which collectively recite that the third request is received from the host processor via the host interface, which results in the data being transmitted via the network interface device. Since Bert does not appear to teach (or even suggest) that a request received at one interface may result in data being sent via another interface, this amendment distinguishes the claim over Bert.
Examiner respectfully notes the above rejection details a response to the newly amended claim limitations.
Applicant further argues on page 24 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 9 is patentable under 35 U.S C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 9 is allowable.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claim 9 is patentable.
Applicant further argues on page 24 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 17, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches sending a first request from a host processor to a host interface of a device, the first request including a first identifier of a first function of a storage device, the device including the storage device and a network interface device, sending a second request from the host processor to the host interface device of the device, the second request including a second identifier of a second function of the network interface device, directed toward the network interface device of the device using the second physical interface of the network interface device, sending a third request from the host processor to the host interface device of the device, the third request including a third identifier of a third function of the device, that the device is configured to direct the first request toward the storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device based at least in part on the first identifier of the first function, that the device is configured to direct the second request toward the network interface device of the device using a second physical interface of the storage device based at least in part on the second identifier of the second function, and that a data of the storage device of the device is transmitted by the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function, citing Figures 1-2 and ¶¶ 2957, 68, 83, 355 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 18-21). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
PNG
media_image11.png
1
1
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
1
1
media_image11.png
Greyscale
First, the Applicant apologies for some typographical errors. First, the claim recites "the second physical interface of the network interface device" without previously reciting "a second physical interface of the network interface device". Second, the claim recites "a second physical interface of the storage device" when it should have recited "the second physical interface of the network interface device". The Applicant hereby amends the claim to correct these typographical errors. Support for this amendment may be found, for example, in claim I as pending. These amendments do not necessitate a new ground of rejection.’
Examiner thanks Applicant for their corrections.
Applicant further argues on page 25 of their remarks ‘Second, the Office Action does not appear to identify any specific features of Bert as teaching that the storage device and the network interface device each include a physical interface. The only apparent discussion about these features in the rejection is where the Office Action argues that Bert [0355] that discloses the functions and operations disclosed may be implemented using circuitry, thus the Network Interface 113 may be a physical interface" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 14-15). But Network interface 1 13 of Bert would only appear to enable communication between Host system B and the memory subsystem: Network interface 113 does not appear to be an interface to the network interface device as claimed.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, Examiner has identified the storage and network interface of Bert are implemented as circuitry. As noted in the attached Merriam-Webster definition of a device a device is a “piece of equipment that has been made for some special purpose”. The storage device and network interface device of Bert are both a piece of equipment that has been made for some special purpose” and the Network Interface 113 may be a physical interface as it interfaces the Computer Network 114 with the Memory Sub-System 110..
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘Similarly, the Office Action argues that Bert "discloses control messages may be sent to the Memory Sub-System Controller (a component of the storage device) for transfer to the Host System A 120 for processing using the Host Interface 112 of the storage device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 20). But the memory sub-system controller is a component of the memory sub-system: it is not a component of the storage device.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted on page 19 of the Office Action Local Storage Device 105 contains both Controller 115 and Memory devices 130..109 thus Local Storage Device 105 is an example of the storage device and the control is a component of the storage device. Thus Bert discloses the controller may be within the Local Storage Device 105, and thus the Controller 115 of Bert may be a component of the storage device.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘In addition, the Office Action argues that "Local Storage Device 105 that contains both Controller 115 and Memory Devices 130...109 this is an example of a storage device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 19). But the Office Action appears to be referring to Figure 9 of Bert. Figure 9 of Bert does not appear to show that the local storage device includes a memory sub-system controller.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the screen shot below showing the Local Storage Device 105 of figure 9 that includes the controller 115, along with Local Memory 119, Processing Device 117, Memory Device 130.. Memory Device 140, and Host Interface 109.
PNG
media_image12.png
370
540
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘On the other hand, Figure I of Bert shows memory devices 140..130, and the memory sub-system controller of Bert is communicating with each memory device, which strongly suggests that the memory sub-system controller is not part of any "local storage device", contrary to the assertion in the Office Action that the storage device includes as a component the memory sub-system controller.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claim does not recite a “local” storage device”. Examiner respectfully notes, as clearly shown in Fig 9, for at least one embodiment, the memory devices of Figure 9 are clearly a part of the Local Storage Device 106 that is an example of a storage device controlled by Controller 115.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘Third, the Office Action does not appear to identify any specific features of Bert as teaching that the storage device and the network interface device each include a physical interface. The only apparent discussion about these features in the rejection is where the Office Action argues that "the connection from the Network Interface 113 that connects the Network Interface 113 to the Memory Sub-System Controller 115" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 19). But while the memory sub-system of Bert might include Network interface 1 13, nowhere does Bert appear to teach (or even suggest) that there is a physical interface between the memory sub-system and Network interface 113
PNG
media_image13.png
5
2
media_image13.png
Greyscale
’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, Examiner has identified the storage and network interface of Bert are implemented as circuitry. As noted in the attached Merriam-Webster definition of a device a device is a “piece of equipment that has been made for some special purpose”. The storage device and network interface device of Bert are each a piece of equipment that has been made for some special purpose” and each is an example of a device that interfaces with other devices in the system using physical interfaces.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘The claim also recites that the storage device and the network interface device each have their own physical interfaces, and that the device as a whole has a host interface to connect to a host processor. The Office Action only appears to argue that Bert teaches two distinct interfaces (Host interface 112 and Network interface 113). It does not appear to be reasonable to interpret two features of Bert to be argued as teaching three distinct features of the claim.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is conflating three interfaces with three distinct features as if three features requires three interfaces. Examiner further notes that applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. As detailed in the remarks above, the claims do not recite third separate and distinct interfaces.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘Fourth, the Office Action argues that the "protocol element" of Bert teaches the recited function. Specifically, the Office Action argues that "[t]he protocol element that identifies the request (for example to delete a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 18-19). But Bert describes a "storage protocol" as "internet small computer systems interface (iSCSI), fibre channel (FC), fibre channel over ethernet (FCoE), network file system (NFS), and server message block (SMB), or another protocol" (see, e.g., Bert, ¶ 31; see also Bert, ¶¶ 46 and 74). In other words, a “protocol”, as used in Bert, does not appear to identify a particular function of a device (such as a storage device or a network interface device. Instead, a "protocol" of Bert appears to be a language for communicating between devices (such as host processor and storage device).
Nor does a "protocol" of Bert appear to, in and of itself, identify any particular function of the device to which a request is directed using the protocol. According to Bert:
Using the storage protocol, the remote host system 121 can send control messages 133 to the memory sub-system 110 to manage and/or administrate the storage capacity. For example, the host system can sign into the memory subsystem to start a session and/or a read/write operation. The control message 133 can include a command to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, to set security attributes (e.g., which files are readable and/or writable by which users), etc. (see Bert, Il 47).
But if the same protocol is used "to generate a namespace in the storage capacity 143, to create, delete, open, or close a file in the namespace, [and] to set security attributes", each of which would appear to be a distinct function, then the protocol does not appear to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device.
Further, for the "protocol" of Bert to identify a function of either a storage device or a network interface device, Bert would necessarily have to use different protocols for communicating with the storage device and with the network interface device. Nowhere does
Bert appear to teach (or even suggest) that different protocols are always used for communicating with the storage device vs. the network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully notes that, as detailed above, Applicant is conflating the terms “protocol element” and “protocol” and applicant is reiterating an argument made on page 15 of their remarks which have been address above.
The office action argues the “protocol element” of Bert and not the “protocol” of Bert. As noted in the office action ‘See Bert [0047]. Thus the remote host may send a storage protocol request that identifies the request as a request to start a session, generate a namespace, to create a namespace, etc. which is sent to the local host over the host interface. The protocol element that identifies the request (for example as a generate a namespace request) is an example of a first identifier of a first function of the storage device or the network interface device.)’ Thus the field within the protocol request is the “protocol element” teaches the recited function.
Applicant further argues on page 26 of their remarks ‘Fourth, the Office Action also does not appear to give proper consideration to the claim language that says that the device is configured "sending a second request directed toward the network interface device of the device using the second physical interface of the network
PNG
media_image14.png
1
1
media_image14.png
Greyscale
interface device" and "to direct the first request toward the storage device of the device using a first physical interface of the storage device". The Office Action argues about communications between the Host systems and the memory sub-system in Bert: but these communications are not between the memory sub-system and either the storage device or the network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing a limitation not claimed. The claims do not recite “communications between the memory sub-system and either the storage device or the network interface devices”. The claims recites sending a request form the host processor to the host interface device.., directed toward the network interface device… wherein the device is configured to direct the first request toward the storage device.
Applicant further argues on page 27 of their remarks ‘Fifth, the Office Action appears to argue that Host system B of Bert may send a control request, which may be forwarded to the Host system A for local processing (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 18). But Bert explicitly states that "[t]he memory sub-system 110 is configured to provide the control messages through the host interface 112 to the local host system 120 for processing without providing other messages, such as data messages, to the host interface 112. (see Bert, Il 37; emphasis added). Since the claim recites a data of the storage device of the device is transmitted by the network interface device of the device in accordance with a data transmission protocol based at least in part on the third identifier of the third function (which was received via the host interface), the claim recites that a request received at the host interface results in data being transmitted via the network interface device. Since Bert apparently is clear that only control messages—and not data—received from Host system B via the network interface are passed to Host system A via the host interface, Bert does not appear to teach the features of the claim.
In addition, the routing of control messages in Bert does not appear to involve accessing any data from a storage device or transmitting any data via a network interface device.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes applicant is repeating an argument made on page 22 of their remarks which have been addressed in the response to the remarks on page 22.
Applicant further argues on page 28 of their remarks ‘Sixth, in rejecting claim 17, the Office action appears to analogize the host interface and the network interface device recited in the claim to Network interface 113 and Host interface 112 of Bert, respectively. This interpretation is inconsistent with that applied in rejecting claim 1l, where the host interface and the network interface device recited in the claim were analogized to Host interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert, respectively: that is, the roles of Host Interface 112 and Network interface 113 of Bert are swapped between the rejections of claims I and 17. This change does not appear to be proper, as the functions of the host interface and the network interface device recited in claims I and 17 are consistent.
Examiner respectfully notes the Examiner does not analogize the host interface and the network interface device recited in claim 17 to the Network interface and the Host interface 112 of Bert. See page 19 of the office action of 9/18/2025 for claim 17 that cites “and Network Interface 113 that is an example of a network device”… “toward the network interface device using the second interface of the network interface device such as the connection from the Network Interface 113 that connects the Network Interface 113 to the Memory Sub-system Controller 115” and page 20 further details the first physical interface is the Host Interface 112 and the second physical interface is a component of the Network Interface 113.
Furthermore, even if Applicant’s claim is correct, claim 17 does not depend from claim 1 and claim 17 may use different interpretations of Bert based on the different recited claim limitations of claim 17.
Applicant further argues on page 28 of their remarks ‘Seventh, the Office Action argues that "[c]onsistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding the data to a format acceptable to the recipient" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 21). First, Il 3 of the specification is background discussion, and ¶ 331 is a single, specific embodiment of the disclosure. Neither of ¶¶ 3 or 331 of the specification should be understood as limiting the meaning of "transcoding". Second, the specification describes transcoding as changing the format of the data (see, e.g., specification, page I l, lines 19-28), whereas Bert is concerned with the packetizing of the data: the data itself does not appear to be changed in Bert. Third, since the claim does not recite "transcoding", the argument presented in the Office Action does not appear to be relevant to the claim.’
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is repeating an argument from page 23 of their remarks that have been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 8 on page 28.
Applicant is providing just one of many possible interpretations of the term transcoding that is consistent with paragraphs [0003] and [0331] of the instant application.
Applicant further argues on page 29 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 17 is patentable under 35 U. S.C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 17 is allowable, as are dependent claims 18-20.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claims 17 are patentable.
Applicant further argues on page 29 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 18, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches sending the first request from the host processor to the host interface of the device includes sending the third request from the host processor to the host interface of the device, citing Figures 1-2 and ¶¶ 25-57 and 83 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 21-22). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action argues that Bert teaches two different requests. But the import of the claim is not that there are two separate requests: rather, the import of the claim is that a single request results in both operations that are described in parent claim 17. Bert does not appear to teach or suggest that a single request might result in both accessing data from the storage device (the first request) and transmitting that data across the network interface device (the third request), particularly where both requests are received using the host interface of the device.
To help emphasize this point, the Applicant hereby amends the claim to recite that the first request includes the third request. Support for this amendment may be found in the specification at, for example, page 15, line 23, through page 16, line 4. Since Bert does not appear to teach (or even suggest) that a single request received using a host interface might result in both data retrieval and data transmission using a network interface device, Bert does not appear to teach (or even suggest) the features of the claim.’
Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant appears to be arguing a newly amended limitation “the first request includes the third request” which claims a single request might result in both accessing data from the storage device (the first request) and transmitting that data across the network interface device (the third request), particularly where both requests are received using the host interface of the device.’ Thus the prior Office Action did not argue Bert taught the limitation as it was not present at the time of the office action.
Furthermore, Examiner disagrees that the cited paragraphs support the amendments. As noted above, Examiner is unable to find support for the amended limitations. Applicant Cites page 15 line 23 through page 16 line 24 as supporting the claim amendments. However the cited paragraphs do not teach the amended limitations “the first quest includes the third request”. What figure 4 shows is that three separate requests may be required to transcode and transmit data. Request 305 sent from process 110 identifies data stored on storage device 305. Process 110 may then send a second request, request 415, that specifies how the data is to be transcoded. And Processor 110 may follow this with a third request 425 to instruct the network interface device 310 to transmit the data. This does not show a “first request includes the third request”. It shows three separate associated requests. See the screen shot of Fig. 4 below for convenience:
PNG
media_image15.png
729
468
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues on page 29 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 18 is patentable under 35 U.S C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 18 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claims 18 are patentable over Bert.
Applicant further argues on page 29 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 19, the Office Action argues that Bert sending a fourth request from the host processor to the host interface of the device, the fourth request directed toward a circuit of the device, the circuit internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device, citing Figures 1-2 and 9 and ¶¶ 29-57, 205-239, and 355 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 22). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, a person of ordinary skill would understand that a "circuit" is not a "bus". A ”circuit" would be understood to be some sort of processing element, whereas a "bus" as described in Bert would appear to be merely the conduit for a communication to be sent from one place to another.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the attached definition of “circuit” from the Microsoft Dictionary that defines a circuit as “1. Any path that can carry electrical current”. A bus is a conduit for communication that carries electrical current from one place to another.
Applicant further argues on page 30 of their remarks ‘Second, according to the specification, the circuit recited in the claim "may perform transcoding of data while resident in the buffer" (see, e.g., specification, page 5, lines 14-18). Bert does not appear to teach (or even suggest) that the bus may perform any sort of processing on the data, such as transcoding. This point is made explicit in dependent claim 20, which recites that the circuit performs the transcoding.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing a limitation not recited in the claim. Claim 19 does not recite the circuit “may perform transcoding”. Applicant may be referring to claim 20. However, Bert is not cited to teach a circuit that performs transcoding. Cosby is cited to teach “transcoding, by the circuit of the device” as detailed in claim 20.
Applicant further argues on page 30 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 19 is patentable under 35 U. S.C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 19 is allowable, as is dependent claim 20.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion that claims 19 are patentable over Bert.
Applicant further argues on page 30 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 21, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches that the network interface device is configured to send the data across the network to a second processor, the second processor separate from the host processor, citing ¶ 36 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 23). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action argues that Bert teaches that "multiple remote host systems can be configured on the computer network 114 to access the storage services of the network-attached storage device (the data)" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 23) But even if this assertion was accepted as true without argument, this assertion does not appear to state that one remote host system might send a request that results in data being sent to a second remote host system
PNG
media_image2.png
5
2
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, this assertion does not appear to address the fact that the claim recites that the request is received from the first processor at the host interface of the device, but the data is transmitted to the second processor via the network interface device of the device. If multiple remote host systems may all connect via a single interface, then the interface used to receive a request and to transmit data in response to that request would be the same interface, and not a different interface as recited in the claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bert [0036] discloses that there may be a plurality of remote hosts systems of the embodiment of Fig. 1. Bert [0031] of Bert discloses the details of Fig. 1 ‘Thus, a combination of the local host system 120 and the memory sub-system 110 can be used as a network-attached data storage device providing storage services to the remote host system 121 through the network interface 113 using a storage capacity of the memory devices 130, . . . , 140.’ Thus Host System A and a plurality of Host System Bs 121 communicate through the Network Interface 113 to send data across the network to a plurality of second processor Host System Bs separate from Host system A, where each Host System contains a Processing Device such as Processing Device 118 in Host System A and Processing Device 128 in Host System B. Host system A performs control processes such as namespace management for Host Bs by communicating through the Memory Sub-System 110 using both the Network Interface 113 and the Host Interface 112. Thus it is not true that the interface used to receive a first request (that is a control request handled by the host interface) and the interface to transmit data in response to that create/open namespace request would transmit the data using the same interface, as it would transfer the data using the network interface 113.
Applicant further argues on page 30 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 21 is patentable under 35 U.S C. 102(a)(2) over Bert. Accordingly, claim 21 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons stated above, Examiner disagrees with applicants conclusion claims 21 are patentable over Bert.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C 103
Applicant further argues on page 31 of their remarks ‘According to the Office Action, Bert teaches that "the Memory Sub-System Controller 115 processes data in the buffer" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 25). But according to the Office Action, the recited buffer is taught by local memory 119 of Bert (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 24).
Bert states that "[t]he memory sub-system controller 115 can buffer the control messages in the local memory 119 for processing by the local host system 120" (see Bert, Il 38). Bert explicitly states that "[t]he memory sub-system 110 is configured to provide the control messages through the host interface 112 to the local host system 120 for processing without providing other messages, such as data messages, to the host interface 112 (see Bert, ¶ 37; emphasis added). Put together, the local memory of Bert appears to be used to buffer control messages to be delivered to Host system A, and does not appear to be used to buffer data’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Para [0037] of Bert discloses that some (but not all) control messages are separated and sent to the local host system 120 without providing other messages as data messages to the host interface. As noted in para [0038] and [0048] of Bert “Processed control messages 137 are provided to the controller 115 of the memory sub-system 110. Executes of commands/request in the process control messages 137 can generate meta data 123 that controls the data storage operations of the memory sub-system. Per Fig. 2 Meta Data 123 is stored within the Memory Sub-System 110 thus is data. Thus the control messages of Bert does involve access data in form a storage device.
Applicant further argues on page 31 of their remarks ‘In addition, claim recites that the circuit is to process the data. If the local memory of
PNG
media_image16.png
33
1
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Bert is used only to temporarily store the control messages until they are delivered to Host system A, then Bert does not appear to teach or suggest a circuit that processes anything in the buffer.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bert does not describe the buffer as temporary storage and “is used only to temporarily store the control messages until they are delivered to Host system A” . Bert [0037] discloses the Memory Sub-System Controller 115 processes data in the buffer. Bert discloses the memory sub-system 110 is configured to provide the control messages through the host interface 112 to the local host system 120. Transmitting data is processing data, thus Bert [0037] discloses processing the control messages. Applicant is encourage to amend the claims if a specific processing step is to be claimed.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘The Office Action rejects claim 13 for the same reasons as claim 4 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 28). Therefore, claim 13 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 4.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 13 is rejectable for the reasons stated in the response to applicants arguments for claim 4.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claims 4 and 13 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claims 4 and 13 are allowable, as are dependent claims 5 and 14.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the remarks above, Claims 4 and 13 are rejectable, thus dependent claims 5 and 14 are not allowable based on their dependence from claims 4 and 13.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 5, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches that the circuit is configured to transcode the data in the buffer, citing Il 91 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 26). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Office Action argues that "[c]onsistent with paragraph [0003] and [033 1] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding the data to a format acceptable to the recipient" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 26). First, 113 of the specification is background discussion, and 111 is a single, specific embodiment of the disclosure. Neither of ¶¶ 3 or 331 of the specification should be understood as limiting the meaning of "transcoding". ‘
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is repeating an argument from page 23 of their remarks that have been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 8 on page 28.
Examiner does not argue that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] limit the meaning of transcode. Instead Examiner argues that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] provide one example interpretation of the term. Other interpretations may also be included for this term.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘Second, the specification describes transcoding as changing the format of the data (see, e.g., specification, page I l, lines 19-28), whereas Bert is concerned with the packetizing of the data: the data itself does not appear to be changed in Bert.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.. Bert [0091] discloses “The internal processor is further configured to convert response messages 155 into data packets for transmission by the network interface 113 to a remote host system 121.” . Converting a packet is changing a packet format into a format acceptable to the remote host. Thus Bert transcodes the data in the buffer and Bert teaches substituting a second format (acceptable to the network) for a first format (acceptable to the storage device) of the data.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘In addition, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach transcoding, by the circuit of the device, the data from the storage device of the device for transmission by the network interface device of the device (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 35). It does not appear reasonable for the Office Action to both argue that Bert teaches transcoding the data and to acknowledge that Bert does not teach transcoding the data.
Examiner respectfully notes that claim 20 is not simply claiming transcoding of data, but is claiming “transcoding, by the circuit of the device” the data from the storge device of the device for transmission” where claim 20 depends from claim 19 that claims “a circuit of the device, the circuit internal to the device and external to the storage device and the network interface device”. Examiner did not state that “Bert does not teach transcoding the data”. Examiner stated that Bert did not teach “further comprising transcoding, by the circuit of the device” where “the circuit” is detailed in claim 19 from which claim 20 depends. Applicant has misrepresented Examiners remarks on page 35.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 5 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claim 5 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully notes for the reasons cited in the response to applicants argument relating to claim 5, the 5 is not patentable.
Applicant further argues on page 32 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 14, the Office Action argues that Bert teaches transcoding the data in the buffer using the circuit of the device, citing Il 91 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 28). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action argues that "[c]onsistent with paragraph [0003] and [033 1] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding the data to a format acceptable to the recipient" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 28). First, Il 3 of the specification is background discussion, and Il 33 1 is a single, specific embodiment of the
PNG
media_image17.png
34
1329
media_image17.png
Greyscale
meaning of "transcoding". Second, the specification describes transcoding as changing the format of the data (see, e.g., specification, page I l, lines 19-28), whereas Bert is concerned with the packetizing of the data: the data itself does not appear to be changed in Bert.
In addition, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach transcoding, by the circuit of the device, the data from the storage device of the device for transmission by the network interface device of the device (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 35). It does not appear reasonable for the Office Action to both argue that Bert teaches transcoding the data and to acknowledge that Bert does not teach transcoding the data.’
Examiner respectfully notes these arguments are a repetition of an argument immediately above and the response to the initial statement of these arguments address Applicants arguments.
Applicant argues on page 33 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 14 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claim 14 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully notes for the reasons cited in the response to applicants argument relating to claim 14 the claim is not patentable.
Rejections over Bert in view of Cosby
Applicant argues on page 33 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 7, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach a root port; the Office Action argues that Cosby teaches this feature, citing Title, Abstract, Figure 4, and ¶¶ 3-8, 12, and 40 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 32-33). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As quoted in the Office Action, Cosby teaches "a PCIe switch may implemented [sic] as a root port" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 32). But the claim is not directed toward a PCIe switch: the claim is directed toward a device that includes a storage device and a network interface device. A PCIe switch would not appear to be interchangeable with the recited device: the functionalities are quite different.’
Examiner respectfully notes that Bert teaches [0003] in order to connect endpoint devices a PCIe interconnect may use one or more PCIe switches. Cosby teaches PCIe switches may be implemented as a root port. Thus it follows that Bert in view of Cosby teaches that in order to connect endpoint devices, a root port may be used/implemented. Thus Bert in view of Cosby teaches the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues on page 33 of their remarks ‘In addition, the Office Action argues that "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 33).
PNG
media_image16.png
33
1
media_image16.png
Greyscale
But as the root port of Cosby is part of a PCIe switch, the root port of Cosby does not appear to be part of the memory subsystem of Bert. Therefore, the Office Action does not appear to address why adding a root port to Bert would be of any benefit: according to the Office Action, Bert already provides the ability "to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 33).’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed immediately above, in order to connect endpoint devices Bert in view of Cosby teaches a root port may be used/implemented. The rationale is ‘in order to connect endpoint devices’. That fact that there are means to connect endpoint devices of Bert beyond PCIe switches does not negate the fact that para [0003] of Bert clearly states that a PCIe switch may be use to connect endpoint devices.
Applicant further argues on page 34 of their remarks ‘For at least these reasons, claim 7 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claim 7 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully notes for the reasons cited in the response to applicants argument relating to claim 7, claim 7 is not patentable.
Applicant further argues on page 34 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 15, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach sending the first request to the storage device of the device using a root port of the device; the Office Action argues that Cosby teaches this feature, citing Title, Abstract, and ¶¶ 3-8, 12, and 40 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 33). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As quoted in the Office Action, Cosby teaches "a PCIe switch may implemented [sic] as a root port" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 33). But the claim is not directed toward a PCIe switch: the claim is directed toward a device that includes a storage device and a network interface device. A PCIe switch would not appear to be interchangeable with the recited device: the functionalities are quite different.
In addition, the Office Action argues that "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 33). But as the root port of Cosby is part of a PCIe switch, the root port of Cosby does not appear to be part of the memory subsystem of Bert. Therefore, the Office Action does not appear to address why adding a root port to Bert would be of any benefit: according to the Office Action, Bert already provides the ability "to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 34).
For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claim 15 is allowable.’
Examiner respectfully notes these arguments are a repetition of the arguments Applicant has made to claim 7 immediately above and have been addressed in the response to arguments presented in claim 7 above.
Applicant argues on page 35 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 16, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach sending the first request to the network interface device of the device using a root port of the device; the Office Action argues that Cosby teaches this feature, citing Title, Abstract, and ¶¶ 3-8, 12 and 40 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 34-35). The Applicant respectfully disagrees.
As quoted in the Office Action, Cosby teaches "a PCIe switch may implemented [sic] as a root port" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 34). But the claim is not directed toward a PCIe switch: the claim is directed toward a device that includes a storage device and a network interface device. A PCIe switch would not appear to be interchangeable with the recited device: the functionalities are quite different.
In addition, the Office Action argues that "it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Cosby that connects peripheral devices and routes communications endpoint functionality into the solution of Bert" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 35). But as the root port of Cosby is part of a PCIe switch, the root port of Cosby does not appear to be part of the memory subsystem of Bert. Therefore, the Office Action does not appear to address why adding a root port to Bert would be of any benefit: according to the Office Action, Bert already provides the ability "to connect a plurality of endpoint devices to a computing system and provide a rich set of functions to endpoint devices such as storage features for NVMe Flash drives connected to the switch and enable connecting any input to any output" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, page 35).
For at least these reasons, claim 16 is patentable under 35 U.S C 103 over Bert in view of Ree. Accordingly, claim 16 is allowable.’
Examiner respectfully notes these arguments are a repetition of the arguments Applicant has made to claim 7 immediately above and have been addressed in the response to arguments presented in claim 7 above.
Applicant argues on page 35 of their remarks ‘In rejecting claim 20, the Office Action acknowledges that Bert does not teach transcoding, by the circuit of the device, the data from the storage device of the device for transmission by the network interface device of the device; the Office Action argues that Cosby teaches this feature, citing ¶¶ 36-37 (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 35-36). The Applicant respectfully disagrees. First, the Office Action argues that "[c]onsistent with paragraph [0003] and [0331] of the instant application, transcoding the data may be preparing the data to or from the storage device for transmission by the network interface device by encoding the data to a format acceptable to the recipient" (see Office Action dated September 18, 2025, pages 35-36).
First, 113 of the specification is background discussion, and Il 33 1 is a single, specific embodiment of the disclosure. Neither of ¶¶ 3 or 331 of the specification should be understood as limiting the meaning of "transcoding". ‘
Examiner respectfully notes Applicant is repeating an argument from page 23 of their remarks that have been addressed in the response to the arguments of claim 8 on page 28.
Examiner does not argue that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] limit the meaning of transcode. Instead Examiner argues that paragraphs [0003] and [0031] provide one example interpretation of the term. Other interpretations may also be included for this term.
Applicant further argues on page 36 of their remarks ‘Second, the specification describes transcoding as changing the format of the data (see, e.g., specification, page I l, lines 19-28), whereas Bert and Cosby both are concerned with the packetizing of the data: the data itself does not appear to be changed in either Bert or Cosby.
For at least these reasons, claim 20 is patentable under 35 U. S.C. 103 over Bert in view of Cosby. Accordingly, claim 20 is allowable.’
Examiner respectfully notes these arguments are a repetition of the arguments Applicant has made to claims 5 and 14 above and have been addressed in the response to arguments presented in claim 5 and 14 above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138