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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 27 January 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: controller in claim 1 support for which was taken as FIG 1: 108 and [0029] of the Specification. .
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6 indicated allowable over the prior art of record.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 1-4,7 over Kagan (US PG PUB No. 20150026368 ) in view of Li (US Pat No. 20080244132).
As per claim 1, a data storage device (see Kagan FIG 1: 26), comprising:
a memory device (see Kagan FIG 2: 40); and
a controller coupled to the memory device (see Kagan FIG 2: 34) , wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a write command from a host device to write data to the memory device (see Kagan [0030]: “such as RDMA read and write operations”);
[The NIC is taken as a host device.]
execute the write command (see Kagan [0019]);
[The storage device reading from the memory of the NIC in response to a RDMA write operation is taken as executing the write command.]
and deliver data corresponding to the write command to the memory device (see Kagan [0023]: “The control logic in this case places an appropriate command in the queue of the SSD controller, then “rings a doorbell' (i.e., writes to a doorbell register) of the SSD to indicate that the command has been queued, and finally may receive a completion report from the SSD upon completion of the corresponding DMA transaction.”)
However, Kang does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Li discloses
wherein executing the write command comprises reading more data from the host device than corresponds to the write command (see Li FIG 2: S240 and [0023])
discard the more data (see Li FIG 2: 250 and [0023]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang to further read more data and discard the more data as taught by Li.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving bus efficiency (see Li [0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang to further read more data and discard the more data as taught by Li for the benefit of improving bus efficiency to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 2, the data storage device of claim 1,
wherein an amount of data corresponding to the write command is less than an aligned data size (see Li [0029].).
As per claim 3, the data storage device of claim 2,
wherein the amount of data corresponding to the write command and the discarded more data collectively is equal to the aligned data size (see Li [0023]).
As per claim 4, the data storage device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether to perform a simplified over read or an optimized over read (see Kang [0023]).
As per claim 7, the data storage device of claim 1,
wherein the controller is configured to perform an adaptive over read (see Li FIG 5A and [0027]).
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan (US PG PUB No. 20150026368 ) in view of Li (US Pat No. 20080244132) as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Brochers (US Pat No. 8255618).
As per claim 8, the data storage device of claim 7,
However, Kang does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Brochers discloses
wherein the adapted over read is a periodic measuring of latency for not over reading, simplified over reading, and optimized over reading (see Brocher FIG8: 820 and COL 17 LINES 20-30).
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the invention to modify Kang to further implement a periodic measuring of latency for not performing read operations as taught by Brochers.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving read operation management (See Brocher COL 17 LINES 30-35).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang to further measure latency for not performing read operations for the benefit of improving management of read operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan (US PG PUB No. 20150026368 ) in view of Li (US Pat No. 20080244132) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kou (US PG PUB No. 20210132860).
As per claim 9, the data storage device of claim 1,
However, Kang does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Kou discloses
wherein the controller is configured to operate in a multiple function nonvolatile memory express (NVMe) device (MFND) environment (See Kou [0002]).
It would have bene obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang to further support NVMe controller interface in a MFND environment.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improved storage management (see Kou [0004]: “This allows individual VMs to directly utilize a portion of the available storage space provided by a MFND with reduced central processing unit ( " CPU ” ) and hypervisor overhead .”).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kang to further implement NVMe interface in an MFND environment for improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 10, the data storage device of claim 9,
wherein at least one virtual host in the MFND environment has different requirements from at least one other virtual host (see e.g., Kang [0033]).
As per claim 11, the data storage device of claim 10,
wherein the at least one virtual host uses a different over read than the at least one other virtual host (see e.g., Li [0023]).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kagan (US PG PUB No. 20150026368 ) in view of Li (US Pat No. 20080244132) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Engber (US PG PUB No. 7448042).
As per claim 12, the data storage device of claim 1,
However, Kang does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Engber discloses
wherein the controller is further configured to detect an unsupported request notification from a host device, and wherein the controller is configured to continue to perform over reads (see Engber COL 13 LINES 40-45).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to detect an unsupported request notification as taught by Engber.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of inter-application accessibility (see Engber COL 1 LINES 40-45).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Kang to detect an unsupported request notification as taught by Engber for the benefit of inter-application accessibility to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
RESPONSE TO ARUGMENTS
1st ARGUMENT:
Therefore, Nellans et al., Brochers et al., Kuo et al., and Engber et al., either alone or in combination, do not teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a data storage device having a controller that is configured to receive a write command from a host device; read data, including more data, from the host device; discard the more data; and deliver the data to a memory device, as recited in claim 1, and claims dependent
thereon. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
Examiner notes Kang in view of Li are relied upon to teach the argued subject matter.
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.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arpan Savla can be reached on 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.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights