DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action, based on application 18/227,256 filed 27 July 2023, is filed in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed 9 June 2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-17 and 19-21 are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks, submitted 9 June 2026 in response to the Office Action mailed 23 March 2026, have been fully considered below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
The applicant traverses the prior art rejection to the claims alleging cited prior art fails to teach at least the following claimed features of Claim 1 (as amended):
determining that the first memory block of the first memory device is filled, and in response, generating integrity data based on the first copy of the user data stored in the first memory block of the first memory device, independently of the second copy of the user data and of whether any of the plurality of memory blocks other than the first memory block of the first memory device are filled.
On Page 9, 2nd ¶, the applicant discusses GOLDING in view of Steps 62, 63, and 65 and ¶[0034] alleging “GOLDING is concerned with determining whether a condition on the size of the virtual object has been met where, if the condition has not been met, a group of objects similar to object A, but not object A, are located”. While the Office acknowledges GOLDING’s teachings for determining the size of virtual object A (Figure 6, Step 64) and then performing one of two different paths, the Office asserts the teaching is irrelevant. The Office maintains GOLDING teaches at least one path of computing parity based on A in response to Figure 6, Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” meeting the scope of the claims. While GOLDING may do extra processing (e.g. Figure 6, Step 64 to decide if virtual object A is to be grouped with group G or not) in the course of computing parity at Figure 6, Step 66 (or even Figure 6, Step 67) in response to Figure 6, Step 63, the extra processing is irrelevant to the scope of the claim.
On Page 9, 3rd ¶, the applicant alleges “nowhere does GOLDING teach that a memory block is filled with object A and, in response, a parity is computed based on object A stored in the memory block independently of the object A’ and of whether any other memory blocks, such as any memory blocks containing G, are filled” in reference to the amended subject matter of Claim 1. While the Office maintains GOLDING’s teachings of a conversion trigger that includes when the storage devices reach a limit on storage space meet the limitation of “determining that the plurality of memory blocks of the memory zone are filled” as previously presented, the Office maintains a rejection in view of GOLDING noting the teachings of ¶[0032] that explicitly teaches “the invention determines whether the size of C is above a predetermined threshold value {analogous to applicant’s claimed ‘determining that the first memory block of the first memory device is filled’}. If it is, the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to an individual parity RAID 5 layout of stripe width s by creating s+1 physical objects on separate object storage devices and copying data into the striped layout”.
While the applicant further traverses the other claims of the application, the traversal is based on the same grounds as argued in the traversal of Claim 1. The Office maintains a prior art rejection and responds to the traversal for reasons presented with respect to the traversal of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 12, 17, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOLDING (US PGPub 2005/0114596).
With respect to Claim 1, GOLDING discloses a method for storing data, comprising:
mirroring user data on two distinct memory devices to store a first copy of the user data in a first memory block of a first memory device and a second copy of the user data in a second memory block of a second memory device (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”), wherein:
the first memory block is included in a memory zone, and the second memory block is external to the memory zone (¶[0033] – “the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to being part of a grouped RAID 5 layout. Object C is grouped {the grouping of C analogous to ‘the first memory block is included in a memory zone’} with other five-block objects A and B, as shown in Fig. 4. Once this occurs, with the values in the parity object P (P1 … P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5, the mirror object C’ is discarded {thus C’ may be characterized as ‘external to the memory zone’ since C’ is not a part of the group}); and
the memory zone includes a plurality of memory blocks where the first copy of the user data is stored and an integrity area that is distinct from the plurality of memory blocks (Fig 4 depicts five-block objects A, B, and C distinct from parity object P; ¶[0033]);
determining a conversion trigger is met (Fig. 6, Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?”; ¶[0017] – “the data converter is triggered when the storage devices reach a limit on storage space”) and, in response, generating integrity data based on the first copy of the user data stored in the first memory block of the first memory device, independently of the second copy of the user data and of whether any of the plurality of memory blocks other than the first memory block of the first memory device are filled (Fig. 6, Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A” is performed in response to Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” => YES; ¶[0034]; ¶[0040]);
storing the integrity data in a memory block of an integrity memory device in the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 4, Parity Object P1…P5; ¶[0033] – “… with the values in the parity object P (P1…P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5 …”; ¶[0035] – “specifically, byte i of the parity object in group G is updated {analogous to ‘storing …’} to the value obtained by computing the XOR of the value in that byte before adding object A with the value of byte i in object A”; ¶[0010] – “The parity object is stored on an object storage device separate from the object storage devices used for the other physical objects in the group”);
determining that the integrity data is stored on the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 6 – Completion of Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A”; ¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”) and, in response, releasing the second copy of the user data in the second memory block (¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”).
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein determining the conversion trigger is met is determining that the first memory block of the first memory device is filled.
However, GOLDING states at ¶[0032] that “FIG. 3 shows that virtual object after it has grown to five blocks. Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 . . . C5). Correspondingly, physical object C' grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C. At this point, the invention determines whether the size of C is above a predetermined threshold value. If it is, the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to an individual parity RAID 5 layout of stripe width s by creating s+1 physical objects on separate object storage devices and copying data into the striped layout.”. The teaching at least suggests an object may be converted from a RAID 1 to RAID 5 configuration in response to the size of the object (or block) reaching a threshold size. As such, with the suggestions asserted by GOLDING, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration GOLDING’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify GOLDING’s explicit teachings such that Figure 6’s Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” may be based on object A reaching a threshold size with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to perform the conversion at an opportune time that balances the costs (e.g. processing time to do the conversion and compute parity) versus benefits (e.g. reduced storage footprint).
With respect to Claim 12, GOLDING discloses an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors (¶[0037] – “The system may incorporate computers, calculators, generators, storage units, converters, controllers, comparators, and other data generation, consolidation, and calculation devices arranged to perform the functions described above”); and
memory storing one or more programs configured for execution the one or more processors (¶[0037] – “The system may incorporate computers, calculators, generators, storage units, converters, controllers, comparators, and other data generation, consolidation, and calculation devices arranged to perform the functions described above”), the one or more programs comprising instructions for:
mirroring user data on two distinct memory devices to store a first copy of the user data in a first memory block of a first memory device and a second copy of the user data in a second memory block of a second memory device (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”), wherein:
the first memory block is included in a memory zone, and the second memory block is external to the memory zone (¶[0033] – “the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to being part of a grouped RAID 5 layout. Object C is grouped {the grouping of C analogous to ‘the first memory block is included in a memory zone’} with other five-block objects A and B, as shown in Fig. 4. Once this occurs, with the values in the parity object P (P1 … P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5, the mirror object C’ is discarded {thus C’ may be characterized as ‘external to the memory zone’ since C’ is not a part of the group}); and
the memory zone includes a plurality of memory blocks where the first copy of the user data is stored and an integrity area that is distinct from the plurality of memory blocks (Fig 4 depicts five-block objects A, B, and C distinct from parity object P; ¶[0033]);
determining a conversion trigger is met (Fig. 6, Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?”; ¶[0017] – “the data converter is triggered when the storage devices reach a limit on storage space”) and, in response, generating integrity data based on the first copy of the user data stored in the first memory block of the first memory device, independently of the second copy of the user data and of whether any of the plurality of memory blocks other than the first memory block of the first memory device are filled (Fig. 6, Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A” is performed in response to Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” => YES; ¶[0034]; ¶[0040]);
storing the integrity data in a memory block of an integrity memory device in the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 4, Parity Object P1…P5; ¶[0033] – “… with the values in the parity object P (P1…P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5 …”; ¶[0035] – “specifically, byte i of the parity object in group G is updated {analogous to ‘storing …’} to the value obtained by computing the XOR of the value in that byte before adding object A with the value of byte i in object A”; ¶[0010] – “The parity object is stored on an object storage device separate from the object storage devices used for the other physical objects in the group”); and
determining that the integrity data is stored on the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 6 – Completion of Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A”; ¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”); and, in response, releasing the second copy of the user data in the second memory block (¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”).
GOLDING may not explicitly teach wherein determining the conversion trigger is met is determining that the first memory block of the first memory device is filled.
However, GOLDING states at ¶[0032] that “FIG. 3 shows that virtual object after it has grown to five blocks. Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 . . . C5). Correspondingly, physical object C' grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C. At this point, the invention determines whether the size of C is above a predetermined threshold value. If it is, the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to an individual parity RAID 5 layout of stripe width s by creating s+1 physical objects on separate object storage devices and copying data into the striped layout.”. The teaching at least suggests an object may be converted from a RAID 1 to RAID 5 configuration in response to the size of the object (or block) reaching a threshold size. As such, with the suggestions asserted by GOLDING, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration GOLDING’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify GOLDING’s explicit teachings such that Figure 6’s Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” may be based on object A reaching a threshold size with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to perform the conversion at an opportune time that balances the costs (e.g. processing time to do the conversion and compute parity) versus benefits (e.g. reduced storage footprint).
With respect to Claim 17, GOLDING discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured for execution one or more processors (¶[0037] – “The system may incorporate computers, calculators, generators, storage units, converters, controllers, comparators, and other data generation, consolidation, and calculation devices arranged to perform the functions described above”), the one or more programs comprising instructions for:
mirroring user data on two distinct memory devices to store a first copy of the user data in a first memory block of a first memory device and a second copy of the user data in a second memory block of a second memory device (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”), wherein:
the first memory block is included in a memory zone, and the second memory block is external to the memory zone (¶[0033] – “the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to being part of a grouped RAID 5 layout. Object C is grouped {the grouping of C analogous to ‘the first memory block is included in a memory zone’} with other five-block objects A and B, as shown in Fig. 4. Once this occurs, with the values in the parity object P (P1 … P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5, the mirror object C’ is discarded {thus C’ may be characterized as ‘external to the memory zone’ since C’ is not a part of the group}); and
the memory zone includes a plurality of memory blocks where the first copy of the user data is stored and an integrity area that is distinct from the plurality of memory blocks (Fig 4 depicts five-block {‘a predefined size’} objects A, B, and C distinct from parity object P; ¶[0033]);
determining a conversion trigger is met (Fig. 6, Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?”; ¶[0017] – “the data converter is triggered when the storage devices reach a limit on storage space”) and, in response, generating integrity data based on the first copy of the user data stored in the first memory block of the first memory device, independently of the second copy of the user data and of whether any of the plurality of memory blocks other than the first memory block of the first memory device are filled (Fig. 6, Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A” is performed in response to Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” => YES; ¶[0034]; ¶[0040]);
storing the integrity data in a memory block of an integrity memory device in the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 4, Parity Object P1…P5; ¶[0033] – “… with the values in the parity object P (P1…P5) being recalculated to include C1 through C5 …”; ¶[0035] – “specifically, byte i of the parity object in group G is updated {analogous to ‘storing …’} to the value obtained by computing the XOR of the value in that byte before adding object A with the value of byte i in object A”; ¶[0010] – “The parity object is stored on an object storage device separate from the object storage devices used for the other physical objects in the group”); and
determining that the integrity data is stored on the integrity area of the memory zone (Fig. 6 – Completion of Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A”; ¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”); and, in response, releasing the second copy of the user data in the second memory block (¶[0035] – “Finally, after the object has been converted {analogous to ‘determining …’}, the mirrored object A’ is discarded”).
GOLDING may not explicitly teach wherein determining the conversion trigger is met is determining that the first memory block of the first memory device is filled.
However, GOLDING states at ¶[0032] that “FIG. 3 shows that virtual object after it has grown to five blocks. Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 . . . C5). Correspondingly, physical object C' grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C. At this point, the invention determines whether the size of C is above a predetermined threshold value. If it is, the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to an individual parity RAID 5 layout of stripe width s by creating s+1 physical objects on separate object storage devices and copying data into the striped layout.”. The teaching at least suggests an object may be converted from a RAID 1 to RAID 5 configuration in response to the size of the object (or block) reaching a threshold size. As such, with the suggestions asserted by GOLDING, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration GOLDING’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify GOLDING’s explicit teachings such that Figure 6’s Step 63 – “Conversion trigger met?” may be based on object A reaching a threshold size with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so would be to perform the conversion at an opportune time that balances the costs (e.g. processing time to do the conversion and compute parity) versus benefits (e.g. reduced storage footprint).
With respect to Claim 2, GOLDING discloses the method of claim 1.
GOLDING further discloses wherein the plurality of memory blocks are of a plurality of data memory devices, the plurality of memory blocks including the first memory block and the plurality of data memory devices including the first memory device, and wherein the integrity data is generated based on respective user data stored in each of the plurality of memory blocks (Figure 4 illustrates objects A, B, and C separate from parity object P; ¶[0032]; ¶[0033]).
With respect to Claim 7, GOLDING discloses the method of claim 1.
GOLDING further discloses receiving a host write request, wherein the user data is mirrored on the two distinct memory devices and the first copy of the user data is stored on the first data memory device in response to the host write request (¶[0034] – “reads and writes to the virtual object are processed by writing to both physical objects A and A’ …”; Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”).
With respect to Claim 20, GOLDING discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17.
GOLDING further discloses wherein the plurality of memory blocks are of a plurality of data memory devices (Fig. 4, Objects A, B, and C), the plurality of memory blocks including the first memory block and the plurality of data memory devices including the first memory device, and wherein the integrity data is generated based on a respective user data stored in each of the plurality of memory blocks (Fig. 6 – Completion of Step 66 – “Recompute parity of G to include A”).
With respect to Claim 21, GOLDING discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17.
GOLDING further discloses wherein the user data includes first user data, the one or more programs further comprising instructions for: mirroring second user data on the two distinct memory devices (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”), before generating the integrity data based on the first user data and storing the integrity data of the first user data on the integrity memory device (¶[0032] – “if it is {the size of the C above a predetermined threshold value or ‘is filled’}, the invention converts C from being individually mirrored to an individual parity RAID 5 layout of a stripe width s by creating s+1 physical objects on separate object storage devices and copying data into the striped layout”; “Once the new physical objects have been created, the data copied, and parity calculated {analogous to ‘integrity data’}”).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOLDING in further view of KATO (US PGPub 2017/0300383).
With respect to Claim 4, GOLDING discloses the method of claim 1.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose further comprising erasing the first copy of the user data from the first memory device by: updating the integrity data to exclude the first copy of the user data stored on the first memory device; and modifying a logical-to-physical (L2P) table to disassociate a physical address of the first memory device where the first copy of the user data is stored with a corresponding logical address associated with the user data.
However, KATO discloses erasing the first copy of the user data from the first memory device (¶[0078] – after erasure coding is performed, replication of the data A’ becomes unnecessary and the SSD 423-2 deletes the data A’; Fig 9, Transition from STATE 2 to STATE 3) by: updating the integrity data to exclude the first copy of the user data stored on the first memory device (¶[0076] – “The state 3 is a state in which erasure coding has been performed from the state 2. Here, in order to generate new parity data, the CM 411 reads present parity data, the data before the update, and the data after the update,. In the example, of Figs 8 and 9, the CM 411 reads A and A’ from the SSD 423-1, and reads AxorBxorC from the SSD 423-4. Then, the CM 411 generates A’xorBxorC as parity data by performing Axor(AxorBxorC)xorA’.”); and modifying a logical-to-physical (L2P) table to disassociate a physical address of the first memory device where the first copy of the user data is stored with a corresponding logical address associated with the user data (Fig 8, 802-3 of STATE 2 is deleted from the FTL address conversion table when transitioning to STATE 3; ¶[0075]).
GOLDING and KATO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and KATO before him or her, to modify the conversion from RAID-1 to RAID-5 of GOLDING to include erasure of the disk drives once the blocks assume a FREE state as taught by KATO. A motivation for doing so would have been to prepare the blocks for new data in the case that the disk drives assume a different storage type such as solid-state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and KATO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of GOLDING and KATO disclose the method of claim 4.
KATO further discloses writing next data in the first memory device in place of the user data; modifying the L2P table to associate the physical address of the first memory device with a next logical address associated with the next data; and updating the integrity data based on the next data (Fig 8 and 9 – transitioning from STATE 2 to STATE 3 regarding Data A to A’).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of GOLDING and KATO disclose the method of claim 4.
KATO further discloses wherein erasing the first copy of the user data from the first memory device by: purging the first copy of the user data from the first memory device (¶[0078] – after erasure coding is performed, replication of the data A’ becomes unnecessary and the SSD 423-2 deletes the data A’; Fig 9, Transition from STATE 2 to STATE 3).
Claim(s) 8-11, 13-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GOLDING in further view of GAO et al (US PGPub 2022/0206696).
With respect to Claim 8, GOLDING discloses the method of claim 1.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two distinct memory devices includes a quad-level-cell (QLC) solid-sate drive (SSD) die and has a plurality of memory blocks, and each memory block includes a plurality of memory pages each of which includes a plurality of quad-level memory cells.
However, GAO discloses wherein each of the two distinct memory devices includes a quad-level-cell (QLC) solid-sate drive (SSD) die and has a plurality of memory blocks, and each memory block includes a plurality of memory pages each of which includes a plurality of quad-level memory cells (¶[0136]).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 9, GOLDING discloses the method of claim 1.
GOLDING further discloses storing a plurality of data blocks of a data object on a plurality of data memory devices including a first data memory device further including the first memory device, wherein the plurality of data blocks includes a first data block further including the user data, and the user data is mirrored on the two distinct memory devices while the first data block is stored on the first data memory device of the plurality of data memory devices (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”).
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein the data object is a data file.
However, GAO discloses wherein the data object is a data file (¶[0096-0097] – “authorities operate to determine how operations will proceed against particular logical elements. Each of the logical elements may be operated on through a particular authority across a plurality of storage controllers of a storage system”; “logical elements could be, for example, files, … individual objects …”; ¶[0099] – “The object could be a file or a directory”).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the objects of GOLDING to include files as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to enable storing of data in a manner that is more intuitive for human access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of GOLDING and GAO disclose the method of claim 9.
GOLDING further discloses the plurality of data blocks of the data file is stored in accordance with a predefined redundant array of inexpensive disks (RAID) level, wherein the predefined RAID level is selected from RAID 4 and RAID 5; and the user data is mirrored on the two distinct memory devices in accordance with RAID 1 (¶[0031] – “The solution provided by the invention is to store newly created objects using a mirrored (RAID 1) layout, and … converted to use an individual RAID 5 (or similar layout)”).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of GOLDING and GAO disclose the method of claim 9.
GOLDING further discloses wherein the user data includes first user data, and the data file further includes second user data, the method further comprising: while the second user data is stored on a second data memory device, mirroring the second user data on two corresponding memory devices distinct from the plurality of data memory devices in accordance with RAID 1 (Figures 2 and 3; ¶[0031] – “a newly created one-block object is stored as two one-block physical objects C and C’ that are mirrors of each other”; “The two physical objects are stored on separate object storage devices”; ¶[0032] – “Physical object C has grown to five blocks (C1 … C5). Correspondingly, physical object C’ grows as well, and continues to store a copy of the data in physical object C”).
With respect to Claim 13, GOLDING discloses the electronic device of claim 12.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes one or more memory dies.
However, GAO discloses wherein each of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes one or more memory dies (¶[0110] – “flash dies”).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies or different types of memory as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 14, GOLDING discloses the electronic device of claim 12.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two distinct memory devices includes one of: a single-level-cell (SLC) memory die, and a multiple-level-cell (MLC) memory die.
However, GAO discloses wherein each of the two distinct memory devices includes one of: a single-level-cell (SLC) memory die, and a multiple-level-cell (MLC) memory die (¶[0244]).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies or different types of memory as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 15, GOLDING discloses the electronic device of claim 12.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein the integrity memory device includes one of an MLC memory die and an SLC memory die and has a plurality of memory blocks, and each memory block includes a plurality of memory pages each of which includes a plurality of MLCs, or SLCs.
However, GAO discloses wherein the integrity memory device includes one of an MLC memory die and an SLC memory die and has a plurality of memory blocks, and each memory block includes a plurality of memory pages each of which includes a plurality of MLCs, or SLCs (¶[0244]).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies or different types of memory as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 16, GOLDING discloses the electronic device of claim 12.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes a storage class memory (SCM) selected from a group consisting of: phase-change memory (PCM), resistive random-access memory (ReRAM), magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM), and 3D XPoint memory.
However, GAO discloses wherein at least one of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes a storage class memory (SCM) selected from a group consisting of: phase-change memory (PCM), resistive random-access memory (ReRAM), magnetoresistive random-access memory (MRAM), and 3D XPoint memory (¶[0136]).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies or different types of memory as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 19, GOLDING discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17.
GOLDING may not explicitly disclose wherein each of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes a distinct memory die of a memory system.
However, GAO discloses wherein each of the two distinct memory devices and the integrity memory device includes a distinct memory die of a memory system (¶[0110] – “flash dies”).
GOLDING and GAO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of RAID storage system management. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of GOLDING and GAO before him or her, to modify the disk drives of GOLDING to include memory devices comprising dies as taught by GAO. A motivation for doing so would have been to select different types of storage memory having known property tradeoffs that may benefit a particular application (e.g. trading better performance for increased area or cost). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine GOLDING and GAO to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights