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 .
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/512,191, filed July 06, 2023. Claims 1-20 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 16, 2024, November 13, 2024, December 16, 2025, and April 28. 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20180349026 A1, hereinafter “Richter”).
With regard to claim 1, Richter discloses:
A system for managing arbitration and command fetching in a data communication system (“Thus, before performing step 3, the memory device controller may arbitrate between the various submission queues to select the particular submission queue from which to fetch the command(s).”, para [0051], “FIG. 4 further illustrates a communication interface between the host device 400 and the memory device 420.”, para [0071]), comprising:
an input channel configured to issue commands (“The ingress path, from the perspective of the memory device 420, includes incoming requests from the host device 400 to the memory device 420.”, para [0071], “Ingress”, fig. 4); and
a controller (“Memory Device Controller”, fig 4) configured to:
PNG
media_image1.png
273
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determine that a number of command requests (i.e. “the number of commands for fetching”) is greater than or equal to a minimum fetch threshold (i.e. “a certain threshold”) (“the command fetch aggregation 434 aggregates the command fetch request in the memory device 420 until the number of commands for fetching have passed a certain threshold”, para [0080])
transmit the command requests in response to the number of the command requests being greater than or equal to the minimum fetch threshold (“When the number of commands for fetching has passed the certain threshold, the command fetch aggregation 434 may send a command to command fetcher 426 to fetch the commands. In that regard, counter 436 may be used to count the number of commands (or to count elapsed time), so that the command fetch aggregation 434 may compare the counted number of commands (the counted elapsed time) to the certain threshold.”, para [0080]) or
With regard to claim 2, Richter discloses the system of claim 1.
Richter further discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
initialize a wait timer (“As another example, the criterion may comprise a timing aspect (e.g., waiting a predetermined amount of time).”, para [0078],), and
transmit the command requests in response to the wait timer being greater than or equal to a predetermined wait time duration (“For example, with regard to timing, the command fetch aggregation 434 may receive a doorbell update from a first submission queue, and wait a predetermined amount of time before fetching available commands from all of the submission queues”, para [0079].
With regard to claim 6, Richter discloses the system of claim 1.
Richter further discloses:
wherein the minimum fetch threshold (i.e. “fetching thresholds”) is calculated based on an executed fetch value (i.e. “the number of commands typically fetched with previous notifications”) (“In a second specific implementation, the memory device may consider one or more factors dependent on analysis of a previous state of the host device or the memory device in determining the fetching criteria or fetching thresholds. As one example, the memory device may analyze one or more patterns of previous host device notifications regarding the submission queue, such as the timing between the previous host device notifications, the number of commands typically fetched with previous notifications, etc.”, para [0020]).
With regard to claim 9, Richter discloses the system of claim 1.
Richter further discloses:
wherein the input channel comprises a plurality of input channels having a wait time duration (“As another example, the command fetch aggregation 434 may assign a predetermined number (e.g., a predetermined amount of time or a predetermined number of commands to fetch) to respective submission queues based on the priority of the respective submission queue. In a first particular example, a higher priority queue may have a lower predetermined number assigned thereto (e.g., a smaller predetermined amount of time to wait before deciding to fetch or a smaller threshold of the number of commands in the queue before deciding to fetch).”, para [0079]).
With regard to claim 11, the limitations except those addressed below are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 1.
Richter discloses:
A method for managing arbitration and command fetching in a data communication system, the method comprising (“Thus, before performing step 3, the memory device controller may arbitrate between the various submission queues to select the particular submission queue from which to fetch the command(s).”, para [0051], “FIG. 4 further illustrates a communication interface between the host device 400 and the memory device 420.”, para [0071], “methods”, para [0022]):
With regard to claim 12, Richter discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 2.
With regard to claim 16, Richter discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 6.
With regard to claim 19, Richter discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 4-5, 10, 14-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Batley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20170185542 A1, hereinafter “Batley”).
With regard to claim 4, Richter discloses the system of claim 1.
Richter further discloses:
wherein the minimum fetch threshold (i.e. “fetching thresholds”) is based on a number of upstream command requests (i.e. “the number of command current being processed”) (“In a first specific implementation, the memory device may consider one or more factors dependent on the current state of the host device or the memory device in determining the fetching criteria or fetching thresholds. As one example, the memory device may consider one or more aspects of the submission queue and/or the completion queue (e.g., the number of command current being processed, the number of commands in the completion queue, etc.).”, para [0019]) Richter does not disclose however, Batley discloses:
and the resource threshold is based on a number of downstream resources (“a threshold number of resources, where that threshold number of resources is varied in dependence on the number of resources required for at least one other request awaiting servicing.”, para [0031]).
Both the systems of Richter and Batley deal with waiting requests. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Richter in view of Batley to improve efficiency.
With regard to claim 5, Richter as modified discloses the system of claim 4.
Richter does not disclose however, Batley discloses:
wherein the command requests are transmitted in response to the number of upstream command requests (i.e. “the respective numbers of transaction slots 42 required by any older instruction”) and the number of downstream resources (i.e. “the number of transaction slots required by that instruction itself”) being greater than or equal to the minimum fetch threshold (i.e. “threshold number of transaction slots”) (“In the example shown in FIG. 3, each instruction A, B, C, D has a corresponding threshold number of transaction slots which need to be available before that request can be serviced. The threshold corresponds to the number of transaction slots required by that instruction itself, plus the maximum of the respective numbers of transaction slots 42 required by any older instruction which has not yet been serviced (for the oldest instruction, the threshold is simply the number of transaction slots required by that instruction as there is no older instruction).”, para [0061]).
Both the systems of Richter and Batley deal with waiting requests. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Richter in view of Batley to improve efficiency.
With regard to claim 10, Richter discloses the system of claim 1.
Richter does not disclose however, Batley discloses:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
disable or reduce the minimum fetch threshold (i.e. “the threshold number of resources”) in response to a host queue depth (i.e. “requests in flight”) being less than the minimum fetch threshold (“In summary, by dynamically changing the threshold number of resources required for a given request to be serviced (i.e. the number of resources effectively reserved for another request) based on the requirements of other requests in flight, the resources can be managed more efficiently.”, para [0129]).
Both the systems of Richter and Batley deal with waiting requests. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Richter in view of Batley to improve efficiency.
With regard to claim 14, Richter as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 4.
With regard to claim 15, Richter as modified discloses the method of claim 14.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 5.
With regard to claim 20, Richter as modified discloses the method of claim 11.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 10.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter in view of Visconti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20220197564 A1, hereinafter “Visconti”).
With regard to claim 3, Richter as modified discloses the system of claim 2.
Richter as modified does not disclose however, Visconti discloses:
wherein the predetermined wait time duration is greater than an arbitration time and a minimum fetch time (“the sixth time period 224-T is greater than or equal to a sum of at least two times the first time period 224-1 and the second time period 224-2.”, para [0054]).
Both the systems of Richter and Visconti deal with timing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Richter as modified in view of Visconti to improve scheduling efficiency.
With regard to claim 13, Richter as modified discloses the method of claim 12.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shergill (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20200174938 A1) discloses “For example, instructions 124 may decrease at least one of the queue depth threshold(s) when the determined total amount of data 132 is greater than data rate threshold 134 and may increase at least one of the queue depth threshold(s) when the determined total amount of data 132 is not greater (i.e., less than or equal to) than the data rate threshold 134, as described in more detail below in relation to FIGS. 3A-3C.” (Shergill, para [0027]).
Liu (CN Patent Application Publication No. CN 115801784 A) discloses “judging whether the real-time access value is greater than or equal to the access threshold value; if the real-time access value is greater than or equal to the access threshold value, adding one to the real-time access value, and returning the service processing failure message to the user terminal; if the real-time access value is less than the access threshold value,” (Liu, pg.4, first paragraph, English translation).
BYUN (KR Patent Application Publication No. KR 20200132047 A) discloses “When the miss count is equal to or greater than the miss count threshold ("YES" in step S1104), the map manager 44 may decrease the read count threshold in step S1106.” (Byun, pg.13, fourth paragraph, English translation).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELENA SABAH NAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-6115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM -5:30 PM.
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, Hyung Sough can be reached at (571) 272-6799. 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.
/S.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights