DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The length of the abstract exceeds the required size. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
PCIe Bus 210 arrow pointing to nowhere in fig. 4.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “present a plurality of physical or virtual function” without clearly reciting the physical functions are presented as what i.e. how are these functions presented to or accessed by the host computing system.
Claim 1 recites “responsive to fetching an original command received from the host computing”. It is unclear original command is fetched from where to where (i.e. source or destination of the original command).
Claim 1 recites “reintroduced command” without clearly reciting if the reintroduced command is same as the original command or different from original command, and if the reintroduced command is also received from the host system.
Claim 1 recites “determining whether the value of the credit counter is not higher than a threshold value; and responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is higher than the threshold value”. It is unclear if the determination of credit counter is not higher or higher than the threshold value.
Claim 1 recites “QoS parameter” without clearly reciting what are QoS parameter.
Claim 3 recites “a firmware component” without clearly reciting if the firmware of the host system or memory system.
Claim 7 recites “a time window” without clearly reciting what is the relevance of time window i.e. time window is referring to which time that is associated with the command or QoS.
Claims 11 and 17 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
* Applicant is advised to at least indicate support present in the specification for further defining/clarifying the claim language in case Applicant believe amendments would unduly narrow the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “fetching commands associated with PF/VF based on credit counter higher that a threshold, wherein the credit counter is associated with the QoS parameter of respective PF/VF” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a system comprising memory/processing device, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 11 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 17 recites “non-transitory computer readable medium”, which falls within the “machine” category of the 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i
A memory system comprising: a memory device; a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to:
generic system
ii
present a plurality of physical or virtual functions (PFs/VFs) to a host computing system;
generic computing
iii
set, for each of the plurality of PFs/VFs, a value of a credit counter to an initial value associated with a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter of a respective PF/VF;
pre-execution extra solution activity
iv
responsive to fetching an original command received from the host computing system associated with a specified PF/VF, decrement the value of the credit counter associated with the specified PF/VF;
mental process abstract idea
v
responsive to receiving a reintroduced command associated with the specified PF/VF after the original command, increment the value of the credit counter;
mental process abstract idea
vi
determine whether the value of the credit counter is not higher than a threshold value; and
mental process abstract idea
vii
responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is higher than the threshold value,
mental process abstract idea
viii
continue fetching subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF.
generic computing
The overall process described by steps [iv]-[vii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [iv]-[vii] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” For example, step [iv] recites “responsive to fetching an original command received from the host computing system associated with a specified PF/VF, decrement the value of the credit counter associated with the specified PF/VF”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Similarly, step [v] recites “responsive to receiving a reintroduced command associated with the specified PF/VF after the original command, increment the value of the credit counter”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Claim 1 steps [vi] - [vii] recites “determine whether the value of the credit counter is not higher than a threshold value”, which is directed to comparing the counter with a threshold, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Therefore, steps [iv]-[vii] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 11 and 17 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 17 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[iii] and [viii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “memory system comprising: a memory device; a processing device coupled to the memory device”, which is common computing component (See Background [0003]), and therefore these are neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “present a plurality of physical or virtual functions (PFs/VFs) to a host computing system”, which is also a common computing components (See Zhu fig. 2; Bert (US 2020/0356396 A1: fig. 2) and therefore these are neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 in step [iii] recites “set, for each of the plurality of PFs/VFs, a value of a credit counter to an initial value associated with a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter of a respective PF/VF”, which is directed to initialization of variables and is considered insignificant extra solution activity and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 step [viii] recites “continue fetching subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF”, which is directed to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution action, and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[iii] and [viii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[iii], and [viii] under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception and additional claim elements without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 17 also recites judicial exception.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 1 in step [i] recites “memory system comprising: a memory device; a processing device coupled to the memory device”, which is common computing component (See Background [0003]), and therefore these do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “present a plurality of physical or virtual functions (PFs/VFs) to a host computing system”, which is also a common computing components (See Zhu fig. 2; Bert (US 2020/0356396 A1: fig. 2) and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 in step [iii] recites “set, for each of the plurality of PFs/VFs, a value of a credit counter to an initial value associated with a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter of a respective PF/VF”, which is directed to initialization of variables and is considered insignificant extra solution activity and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 1 step [viii] recites “continue fetching subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF”, which is directed to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution action (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1, 11 and 17 are directed to judicial exceptions and additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and do not amount to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the initial value associated with the QoS parameter reflects a maximum value of the QoS parameter allowed for the specified PF/VF”, which further describes the initial value of the QoS parameter, and do not impose limitation on the abstract idea in such a manner to make the abstract idea patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the initial value is determined by a firmware component”, which is directed to the firmware for performing initialization of variable/QoS parameter and is neither inventive nor improvement to the technology / technical field. Claim 4 also recites similar elements and is rejected based on similar analysis/rationales.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the value of the credit counter is decremented by a value determined based on a size of the QoS parameter that the original command requires”, which is directed to a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Therefore, these are directed to mental process abstract idea. Claim 6 also recites similar elements as claim 5, and is rejected based on similar analysis/rationales.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the value of the credit counter is set to the initial value at a beginning of a time window”, which is directed to initializing the credit counter and is neither inventive nor provide improvement to technology and technical field.
Claim 8 recites “responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is not higher than the threshold value, stop fetching the subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF”, which is directed to a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of physical aid. Therefore, these are directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “receive a specific value from a firmware component; and set the value of the credit counter to the specific value”. Receiving information is similar to idea to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Setting the value of the credit counter / variable is extra solution activity that is neither inventive nor improvement. Claim 10 also recites similar limitations and is rejected based on the similar rationales.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 12-16 and 18-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea and/or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre / post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2021/0019085 A1, hereafter Zhu) in view of Benisty et al. (US 2018/0217951 A1, hereafter Benisty).
As per claim 1, Zhu teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a memory system comprising (fig. 1 memory sub-system 110):
a memory device (fig. 1 local memory 119);
a processing device coupled to the memory device (fig. 1 processor 117 local memory 119), the processing device to (fig. 1 117):
present a plurality of physical or virtual functions (PFs/VFs) to a host computing system ([0014] present itself to the host system as a single physical function, SR-IOV, offers different virtual functions [0015] multiple physical functions; fig. 2 memory subsystem 110 controller 115 PFs 212, 214, 216, 218);
set, for each of the plurality of PFs/VFs, a value of a credit counter to an initial value associated with a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter of a respective PF/VF ([0042] multiple counter with multiple sub-counters per PF [0029] physical function, perform, management, quality of service QoS [0095] QoS module, implement individual quality of service management for each of the queues of the multiple PFs, attaches QoS controls to each PF, storage partition size, bandwidth);
responsive to fetching an original command received from the host computing system associated with a specified PF/VF ([0017] host system 120, memory sub-system 110, write/read data [0021] receive commands or operations from the host system 120 [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0027] memory sub-system 110, host system 120, PCIe bus 210, physical functions PFs 212-218, queue 202-208 [0061] PFs, store, commands from the host computing system, quota of commands), decrement the value of the credit counter associated with the specified PF/VF ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0061] tracks a current count of commands issued, determine the difference values between the quota and the current count, update the count of the selected PF’s counter);
responsive to receiving a reintroduced command associated with the specified PF/VF after the original command, increment the value of the credit counter ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0042] incrementing the respective counter, when command is issued);
determine whether the value of the credit counter is not higher than a threshold value ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands [0061] determines a quota of commands for the respective PF i.e. threshold; tracks a current count of commands issued, determine different between quota and the current count i.e. counter is not higher than the threshold); and
responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is higher than the threshold value ([0061] determines a quota of commands for the respective PF i.e. threshold; tracks a current count of commands issued, determine different between quota and the current count i.e. counter is not higher than the threshold), continue fetching subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF ([0021] receive commands/operations from the host system [0042] tracks the count of commands issued, available command slots [0094] receive multiple commands ).
Zhu doesn’t specifically teach credit counter associated with the QoS; decrement the value of credit counter; threshold value.
Benisty, however, teaches credit counter associated with the QoS ([0077] QoS policies associated with the respective IOV functions [0092] credits allocated to IOV functions [0123] credits, allocated, IOV function, in accordance with QoS policy);
decrement the value of credit counter ([0090] command fetch credits, fetching command from queues, consumer a portion of the credits i.e. decreasing [0013] fetching commands from queues of virtual functions, reducing the number of credits allocated to the selected virtual functions);
responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is higher than the threshold value ([0087] number of command fetched, command threshold criteria, until a minimum threshold is reached [0013] fetching commands from queues of virtual functions, reducing the number of credits allocated to the selected virtual functions), continue fetching subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF ([0087] preventing interruption of command fetching until a minimum threshold is reached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Zhu with the teachings of Benisty of QoS policy associated with IOV function, credits allocated to IOV functions, reducing the number of credits allocated to the virtual functions upon fetching commands, preventing interruption of command fetching until a minimum threshold is reached to improve efficiency and allow credit counter associated with the QoS; decrement the value of credit counter; threshold value to the method of Zhu as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because decreasing of counter upon fetching command, QoS policy / credits associated with IOV functions and preventing the interruption of command fetching until a minimum threshold is reached as taught by Benisty to the teachings of Zhu to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Zhu teaches wherein the initial value associated with the QoS parameter reflects a maximum value of the QoS parameter allowed for the specified PF/VF ([0038] quota of commands for each PF [0095] QoS, individually quality of service management, each queue of the multiple PFs).
As per claim 3, wherein the initial value is determined by a firmware component ([0041] each PFs, quota of commands [0061] determines a quota of commands for the respective PF [0023] functionality of the arbiter component 113, implemented, processor. Part of firmware on the controller).
As per claim 4, Benisty teaches wherein the reintroduced command is received from a firmware component ([0063] command fetching, implemented, firmware).
As per claim 5, Zhu teaches the size of the QoS parameter ([0095] QoS, quality of service management for each of the queues of the multiple PFs, requirements, QoS characteristics, controls to each PF, storage partition size, bandwidth, compliance with the QoS requirements).
Benisty teaches wherein the value of the credit counter is decremented by a value determined based on the original command requires ([0013] fetching, command, queue, virtual function, reducing the number of credits allocated to the selected virtual function, reducing the number of credits allocated, by the determined amount, based on type of command, data transfer size, attribute of the command).
As per claim 6, Zhu teaches wherein the value of the credit counter is incremented by a value determined based on a size of the QoS parameter that the reintroduced command requires ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0042] incrementing the respective counter, when command is issued [0095] QoS, quality of service management for each of the queues of the multiple PFs, requirements, QoS characteristics, controls to each PF, storage partition size, bandwidth, compliance with the QoS requirements).
As per claim 7, Zhu teaches wherein the value of the credit counter is set to the initial value at a beginning of a time window ( [0042] multiple counter with multiple sub-counters per PF [0029] physical function, perform, management, quality of service QoS [0015] distributing commands of physical functions into timing windows [0041] store number of available command slots in a timing window).
As per claim 8, Benisty teaches wherein the processing device is further to: responsive to determining that the value of the credit counter is not higher than the threshold value, stop fetching the subsequent commands associated with the specified PF/VF ([0087] enabling interruption in response to determining that the minimum threshold has been satisfied).
As per claim 9, Benisty teaches to receive a specific value from a firmware component; and set the value of the credit counter to the specific value ([0123] credits, periodically, provisioned to the IOV functions [0063] implemented by the use of firmware).
As per claim 10, Benisty teaches wherein the processing device is further to: periodically reset the value of the credit counter to the initial value ([0123] credits, periodically, provisioned to the IOV functions).
Claim 11 recites a method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites the elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites the elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites the elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites the elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites the elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites the method for elements similar to elements of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 17, Zhu teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
configuring a credit counter for each of a plurality of physical or virtual functions (PFs/VFs) implemented ([0042] multiple counter with multiple sub-counters per PF, dynamic counter fig. 2 PFs 212 ) by a memory sub-system comprising a plurality of memory devices (fig. 1 memory sub-system 110 memory components 112);
setting a value of the credit counter corresponding to an initial value associated with a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter of a respective physical or virtual function ([0042] multiple counter with multiple sub-counters per PF [0029] physical function, perform, management, quality of service QoS [0095] QoS module, implement individual quality of service management for each of the queues of the multiple PFs, attaches QoS controls to each PF, storage partition size, bandwidth);
responsive to fetching a command associated with a specific physical or virtual function ([0017] host system 120, memory sub-system 110, write/read data [0021] receive commands or operations from the host system 120 [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0027] memory sub-system 110, host system 120, PCIe bus 210, physical functions PFs 212-218, queue 202-208 [0061] PFs, store, commands from the host computing system, quota of commands), decrementing the value of the credit counter ( [0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0061] tracks a current count of commands issued, determine the difference values between the quota and the current count, update the count of the selected PF’s counter);
responsive to receiving a feedback associated with the specific physical or virtual function ([0042] tracks the count of commands issued from the respective queue by incrementing the respective counter), determining, based on the feedback, whether to increment the value of the credit counter ([0042] incrementing the respective counter, when a command is issued) ;
responsive to determining to increment the value of the credit counter, incrementing the value of the credit counter ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0042] incrementing the respective counter, when command is issued);
determining whether the value of the credit counter satisfies a threshold value; and responsive to the value of the credit counter satisfying the threshold value, stop fetching a subsequent command associated with the specific PF/VF.
Benisty, however, teaches credit counter associated with the QoS ([0077] QoS policies associated with the respective IOV functions [0092] credits allocated to IOV functions [0123] credits, allocated, IOV function, in accordance with QoS policy);
decrement the value of credit counter ([0090] command fetch credits, fetching command from queues, consumer a portion of the credits i.e. decreasing [0013] fetching commands from queues of virtual functions, reducing the number of credits allocated to the selected virtual functions);
determining whether the value of the credit counter satisfies a threshold value
([0087] number of command fetched, command threshold criteria, until a minimum threshold is reached [0013] fetching commands from queues of virtual functions, reducing the number of credits allocated to the selected virtual functions); and
responsive to the value of the credit counter satisfying the threshold value ([0087] in response to determining that the minimum threshold has been satisfied), stop fetching a subsequent command associated with the specific PF/VF ([0087] enabling interruption, minimum threshold, has been satisfied).
Claim 18 recites elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 20, Zhu teaches wherein the value of the credit counter is incremented by a value determined based on a size of the QoS parameter that a reintroduced command included in the feedback requires ([0040] update the count / counter for the respective queue [0041] each PFs, quota of commands, [0026] commands, count of commands, multiple queues, each queue is associated with one or multiple PFs [0042] incrementing the respective counter, when command is issued [0095] QoS, quality of service management for each of the queues of the multiple PFs, requirements, QoS characteristics, controls to each PF, storage partition size, bandwidth, compliance with the QoS requirements).
Benisty teaches remaining claim elements of size included in the feedback criteria ([0138] capture, statistical information pertaining to the fetched commands, command size).
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU ZAR GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00 - 17:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195