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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 8, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on October 8, 2025 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): no amendments or arguments were made to address the 112(b) rejections to claims 17 and 20. See the response to remarks section of this Office action below. See 37 CFR 1.111.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “1. 1. (Currently Amended) A device comprising:” should read “1. (Currently Amended) A device comprising:”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 and 15-21 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 a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 21 recite “a borrowed capacity comprising one or more physical memory blocks from a separate partition”, “a borrowed capacity, comprising one or more physical memory blocks dynamically re-allocated from a separate partition”, and “allocate, … a plurality of physical memory blocks from a separate partition” (respectively), however it is unclear which partition the “separate partition” is separate from. For the purposes of examination, these claim limitations have been interpreted as follows “a borrowed capacity comprising one or more physical memory blocks from a partition separate to one of the dynamic physical partitions”, “a borrowed capacity, comprising one or more physical memory blocks dynamically re-allocated from a partition to a separate partition”, and “allocate, … a plurality of physical memory blocks from one of the physical partitions to a separate partition” (for claims 1, 12, and 21 respectively).
Additionally, in claim 12, the phrase “a separate partition” lacks antecedent basis as there is no prior recitation in the claim language of partitions (only partition requirements are recited). The examiner also notes that the subsequent claim limitation “receive a partition creation confirmation from the storage device” would not provide sufficient antecedent basis if that limitation were recited first, as “receive a partition creation confirmation from the storage device” only recites the creation of a single partition, but the limitation “a separate partition” requires at least two partitions (a first partition and a second partition separate to it).
Claims 2-11 and 15-20 fail to satisfy the requirements of 112(b) as they depend on either claim 1 or claim 12, which fail to satisfy the requirements of 112(b).
Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation "the preference of the physical configuration" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim or on claim 12, on which the claim depends. Claim 12 recites a plurality of physical configurations, but does recite a preference. The applicant may have intended for claim 17 to recite dependence on Claim 16 which recites “a preference on the configuration of the physical partition”, however it is unclear if this is the same as a “preference of the physical configuration” of claim 17. Therefore claim 17 fails to satisfy the requirements of 112(b).
Claim 18 additionally recites “The device of claim 17, wherein the preference of the physical configuration comprises a specific plurality of dies within the memory array.” This appears to contradict claim 17 which recites “the preference of the physical configuration comprises utilizing a single die within the memory array.” It is unclear how the preference can comprise both a plurality of dies and utilizing a single die. Therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 20 additionally recites the limitation "the plurality of blocks". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, or in claims 12 and 17, on which the claim depends. Claim 12 recites “one or more physical memory blocks”, however it is unclear if “the plurality of blocks” is intended to refer to the “one or more physical memory blocks” For examination purposes, claim 20 will be read as if dependent on claim 19, which recites a plurality of blocks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 15-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While the prior art of record teaches partition logics (for example, Griffin et al. U.S. patent no. 9495289) and borrowed capacities (for example, Olson et al. U.S. patent no. 10078533), as best understood and interpreted by the examiner, a borrowed capacity comprising one or more physical memory blocks, from a partition separate to a dynamic physical partition, generated after an amount of utilized capacity exceeds a predetermined threshold is not taught or suggested by the prior art. Therefore claim 1 would be allowable. Claims 12 and 21 recite similar limitations and would therefore also be allowable.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 15-20 would be allowable because they depend on claims containing allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks the applicant for their remarks of October 8, 2025. The remarks have been accepted and fully considered.
In light of the amendments to claim 1, the 112(b) rejection regarding the phrase “send one or more partition requirements to the device” is withdrawn. However, the 112(b) rejections to claims 17 and 20 were not addressed within the applicant’s remarks or amendments and therefore are not withdrawn (see above).
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art rejections are moot in light of the indication of allowable subject matter contained in this Office Action.
Pertinent Prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9274839 B2 – Schluessler et al.
Relevant excerpts: “Techniques For Dynamic Physical Memory Partitioning” [title]
“Various embodiments are presented herein that reallocate partitions of a shared physical memory between processing units. An apparatus and a computer-implemented method may determine an amount of memory space in the physical memory allocated to a first processing unit during system initialization. The determined amount of the memory space may be consolidated. The consolidated memory space may be allocated to the second processing unit during runtime. Other embodiments are described and claimed.” [abstract]
US 20150082014 A1 – Funaki et al.
Relevant excerpt: “Disclosed is a computer system with a physical storage device. The physical storage device has a plurality of partitions and allows a user to select and combine at least two partitions to form a virtual storage device to be accessed by the operating system and makes unselected partitions inaccessible to the operating system.” [abstract]
US 8230196 B1 – Confalonieri et al.
Relevant excerpt: “Example embodiments for configuring a non-volatile memory device may comprise configuring M physical partitions of the non-volatile memory into two or more banks, wherein the two or more banks respectively comprise one or more of the M physical partitions, and wherein at least a first of the M physical partitions comprises a first size and wherein at least a second of the M physical partitions comprises a second size.” [abstract]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN O’CONNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-2857
To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http:/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 ttps://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.
/C.J.O./
Examiner, Art Unit 2138
/Kaushikkumar M Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138