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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Byun (USPN 20220179744A1).
As per claim 1, Byun discloses a storage device recovers from a firmware failure that places the storage device in an undetectable state, the storage device comprises: a memory device to store recovery firmware (paragraph 0005 – a storage device including a firmware group configured to store sub firmware data); and a controller (paragraph 0035 – memory controller 200) including: a failure detector module that identifies a firmware failure when one of a periodic signal is not received by the failure detector module from a firmware thread (paragraph 0167 - In one embodiment, when the memory controller 200 does not provide a booting completion response to the booting request from the host 400 for a preset period, the memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware regardless of the sub firmware execution request. For example, when the main firmware executor 210 is stuck, the mode changer 220 may also not perform operations of calculating the number of power losses and selecting the firmware mode according to the result of comparing the number of power losses and the reference number. When the sub firmware executor 230 does not receive a signal indicating the sub firmware mode from the mode changer 220, from a time when the booting request is provided to a time when a preset period elapses, the sub firmware executor 230 may execute the sub firmware ), an initialization counter value is greater than an initialization threshold, and a notification is received of a predefined number of power cycle events occurring with a given time frame; and that updates a boot address (paragraph 0167 - In one embodiment, when the memory controller 200 does not provide a booting completion response to the booting request from the host 400 for a preset period, the memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware regardless of the sub firmware execution request.; the updating a boot address is using the sub firmware stored in memory), and
a recovery module to obtain a light mount recovery firmware from the memory device, based on the boot address, to use the light mount of the recovery firmware to recover the storage device in a recovery mode and perform phased recovery actions to restart the storage device (paragraph 0166 - When the stuck repeatedly occurs in the memory controller 200 during a predetermined event period, the host 400 may provide the sub firmware execution request to the memory controller 200. The memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware in response to the sub firmware execution request of the host 400. For example, the sub firmware executor 230 may obtain the sub firmware data S_FW_DATA from the memory device 100 in response to the sub firmware execution request and may execute the sub firmware according to the sub firmware data S_FW_DATA. The sub firmware may be, for example, the same as described with reference to FIG. 8. , the phased recovery actions is the part of the execution of the sub firmware to boot up the storage device, as further indicated in paragraph 0079 - When the booting completion response is provided to the host 400 within the event period, the host 400 may provide an operation request to the storage device 1000. The operation request may be, for example, a write request, a read request, or an erase request. – the light mount is the sub firmware).
As per claim 6, Byun et al. discloses further comprising a real-time clock module to receive the notification for an initialization event from an initialization firmware whenever the storage device boots up (paragraph 0067 - the main firmware executor 210 may provide the booting completion response to the host 400.).
As per claim 13, Byun discloses a method in a storage device for recovering from a firmware failure that places the storage device in an undetectable state, the storage device comprises a controller to perform the method comprising: identifying a firmware failure when one of a periodic signal is not received by the failure detector module from a firmware thread (paragraph 0167 - In one embodiment, when the memory controller 200 does not provide a booting completion response to the booting request from the host 400 for a preset period, the memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware regardless of the sub firmware execution request.), an initialization counter value is greater than an initialization threshold, and a notification is received of a predefined number of power cycle events occurring with a given time frame; updating a boot address (paragraph 0167 - In one embodiment, when the memory controller 200 does not provide a booting completion response to the booting request from the host 400 for a preset period, the memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware regardless of the sub firmware execution request.; the updating a boot address is using the sub firmware stored in memory);
Obtaining a light mount of recovery firmware from a memory device based on an updated boot address; recovering the storage device in a recovery mode with the light mount of the recovery firmware; and performing phased recovery actions to restart the storage device (paragraph 0166 - When the stuck repeatedly occurs in the memory controller 200 during a predetermined event period, the host 400 may provide the sub firmware execution request to the memory controller 200. The memory controller 200 may execute the sub firmware in response to the sub firmware execution request of the host 400. For example, the sub firmware executor 230 may obtain the sub firmware data S_FW_DATA from the memory device 100 in response to the sub firmware execution request and may execute the sub firmware according to the sub firmware data S_FW_DATA. The sub firmware may be, for example, the same as described with reference to FIG. 8., the phased recovery actions is the part of the execution of the sub firmware to boot up the storage device, as further indicated in paragraph 0079 - When the booting completion response is provided to the host 400 within the event period, the host 400 may provide an operation request to the storage device 1000. The operation request may be, for example, a write request, a read request, or an erase request. – the light mount is the sub firmware).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5,7-12,14-19 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. Either no prior art could be found to reject the claims or no reason to combine.
Claim 20 is allowed. Claim 20 is allowed because of the inclusion of the following limitations: ‘executing a light mount of the recovery firmware to restart the storage device and enter a temporary read-only mode to enable a host to back-up data stored on the storage device; and executing a first recovery attempt by exiting a read-only mode to allow read and write operations, and if the first recovery attempt fails, executing a second recovery attempt by sending logical-to-physical tables to a host, erasing the logical-to- physical tables on the storage device, and retrieving the logical-to-physical tables from the host to allow read and write operations’.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: ‘failure detector module’ in claims 1,2,5; ‘recovery module’ in claim 1; ‘real-time clock module’ in claim 6.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered. The newly added limitations have been rejected. Please see the above rejection. The newly added limitations did not fully incorporate the language of the objected claims identified in the remarks section. The claim interpretation still stands because the ‘module’ modifier can either be hardware or software.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113