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 October 2025.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3,5-6,11-14,16-21,22,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Kuzmin (US PG PUB No. 2014/0215129).
As per claim 1, Kuzmin discloses a system (fee FIG 1: 101), comprising:
a storage device (see FIG 1: 123); and
a processor configured to send a write request to the storage device (see FIG 1: 105 and [0117]), the write request including a data to be written and a reclaim unit identifier identifying how the data is to be organized on the storage device (see e.g., FIG 11A: 1115),
[A write command including a reclaim unit identifier is sent because copy operation comprises writing data (see FIG 11A: 1117).]
wherein the processor is further configured to send a message to the storage device, the message indicating that the processor is to manage garbage collection of a reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier (see [0137]: “In addition to host detection of a threshold condition relating to garbage collection, this can also be performed at the memory controller (1105), as a default function or programmatically configured as a result of an asynchronous command from the host.“),
wherein the processor is further configured to select a second reclaim unit identifier identifying a second reclaim unit, and to perform garbage collection of the reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier by sending a read request including the reclaim unit identifier, a write request including the second reclaim unit identifier, or a delete request including the reclaim unit identifier to the storage device (see FIG 11A: 1117 and [0136]), and
wherein the storage device includes a block for which the storage device manages garbage collection (see [0137]).
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
As per claim 2, the system according to claim 1, wherein the storage
device is configured to assign a first garbage collection priority to the reclaim unit based at least in part on the message sent from the processor to the storage device (see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 3, the system according to claim 2, wherein:
the storage device includes a second reclaim unit; and the storage device includes a garbage collection priority unit to assign a second garbage collection priority to the second reclaim unit, the first garbage collection priority lower than the second garbage collection priority(see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 5, the system according to claim 1,
wherein the storage device includes a controller to select the reclaim unit for garbage collection and to send a garbage collection message to the processor to inform the processor (see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 6, the system according to claim 5,
wherein the controller is configured to select the reclaim unit for garbage collection based at least in part on a media integrity issue (see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 11, a method, comprising:
receiving a write request at a storage device from a processor, the write request including a data to be written and a reclaim unit identifier identifying how the data is to be organized on the storage device (see e.g., FIG 11A: 1115),
[A write command including a reclaim unit identifier is sent because copy operation comprises writing data (see FIG 11A: 1117).]
writing the data to a reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier;
receiving a message at the storage device from the processor, the message indicating that the processor is to manage garbage collection of the reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier (see [0137]: “In addition to host detection of a threshold condition relating to garbage collection, this can also be performed at the memory controller (1105), as a default function or programmatically configured as a result of an asynchronous command from the host.“), and
receiving a read request including the reclaim unit identifier, a write request including a second reclaim unit identifier, or a delete request including the reclaim unit identifier at the storage device from the processor (see FIG 11A: 1117 and [0136]),
wherein the storage device includes a block for which the storage device manages garbage collection (see [0137]).
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
As per claim 12, the method according to claim 11,
wherein receiving the message at the storage device from the processor regarding management of garbage collection of the reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier includes assigning a priority to the reclaim unit (see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 13, the method according to claim 11,
wherein the reclaim unit identifier includes a reclaim unit handle, the reclaim unit handle identifying the reclaim unit and the second reclaim unit (see e.g., FIG 11A: 1117 and [0136]).
As per claim 14, the method according to claim 11, wherein:
the reclaim unit identifier includes a logical address; and the method further comprises identifying the reclaim unit from an association between the logical address and the reclaim unit (see [0141]: In association with these actions, the memory controller updates its local meta data (1147) and transmits a consequent logical to physical mapping back to the host, together with metadata that enables the host to perform a reverse lookup and consequently build its own address translation table for files (1149, 1151,1153).”)
[Kuzmin discloses the blocks are accessed with a logical to physical mapping.]
As per claim 15, the method according to claim 11, wherein:
the reclaim unit identifier includes a logical address range, the logical address range including a first logical address and a second logical address (see [0064]: “for specific address ranges or EU ranges”);
the reclaim unit includes the first logical address in the logical address range; the second reclaim unit includes the second logical address in the logical address range (see [0064]: “For example, as referenced previously, the memory controller can be provided with logic operable to receive and interpret host com mands for lists of blocks, e.g., the “top ten candidates for garbage collection, ranked in order of page (under) utilization.”); and
the method further comprises:
identifying the reclaim unit from an association between the logical address range and the reclaim unit; and identifying the second reclaim unit from a second association between the logical address range and the second reclaim unit (see [0064]: “The query/management logic block 317 uses internal registers 319 to manage functions like this and, when the requested processing is complete, the query/management logic block sends a reply message to the host with the requested information.”).
As per claim 16, the method according to claim 11,
further comprising receiving a second message at the storage device from the processor, the second message indicating that the storage device is to manage garbage collection of the reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier (see [0137]).
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
As per claim 17, the method according to claim 16,
wherein receiving the second message at the storage device from the processor, the second message indicating that the storage device is to manage garbage collection of the reclaim unit identified by the reclaim unit identifier includes performing garbage collection of the reclaim unit by the storage device (see [0136])
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
As per claim 18, the method according to claim 11, further comprising:
selecting the reclaim unit for garbage collection by the storage device; and performing garbage collection on the reclaim unit by the storage device (see FIG 11A and [0136])
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
As per claim 19, the method according to claim 18,
further comprising sending a garbage collection message to processor from the storage device that the reclaim unit is selected for garbage collection by storage device (see [0141]: “In association with these actions, the memory controller updates its local meta data (1147) and transmits a consequent logical to physical mapping back to the host, together with metadata that enables the host to perform a reverse lookup and consequently build its own address translation table for files (1149, 1151,1153).”)
As per claim 20, The method according to claim 19, wherein:
performing garbage collection on the reclaim unit by the storage device includes programming the data from the reclaim unit into the second reclaim unit by the storage device (see [0136]); and
sending the garbage collection message to the processor from the storage device that the reclaim unit is selected for garbage collection by the storage device includes writing the second reclaim unit identifier identifying the second reclaim unit in a log page by the storage device (see [0116]).
As per claim 21, a storage device, comprising:
a storage media to store a data (see FIG 1: 107 and [0054]), the storage media including a first reclaim unit identified by a first reclaim unit identifier and a second reclaim unit identified by a second reclaim unit identifier (see FIG 11A: 1107); and
a controller to manage access to the data in the storage media based on a request from a processor, the controller configured to manage garbage collection on the first reclaim unit (see FIG 1: 121 and [0136]),
[Kuzmin discloses host owned and shared garbage collection, where in shared garbage collection both the host and the storage device manages garbage collection for the blocks.]
wherein the storage device is configured to cede management of garbage collection on the second reclaim unit to the processor based at least in part on a garbage collection message received at the storage device from the processor (see [0137]: “In addition to host detection of a threshold condition relating to garbage collection, this can also be performed at the memory controller (1105), as a default function or programmatically configured as a result of an asynchronous command from the host.“).
As per claim 22, the storage device according to claim 21,
further comprising a garbage collection priority unit to assign a first garbage collection priority to the first reclaim unit and to assign a second garbage collection priority to the second reclaim unit, the first garbage collection priority lower than the second garbage collection priority, the second garbage collection priority assigned to the second reclaim unit based at least in part on the garbage collection message received at the storage device from the processor (see [0106]: “In response to Such a command, the memory controller returns a listing of EUs (or logical units), sorted by any desired priority Scheme (e.g., by lowest amount of wear).”).
As per claim 24, the storage device according to claim 21,
wherein the controller is configured to select the second reclaim unit for garbage collection and to send a second garbage collection message to the processor to inform the processor that the second reclaim unit is selected for garbage collection by the storage device (see [0141]: In association with these actions, the memory controller updates its local meta data (1147) and transmits a consequent logical to physical mapping back to the host, together with metadata that enables the host to perform a reverse lookup and consequently build its own address translation table for files (1149, 1151,1153).”)
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.
Claim 4, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzmin (US PG PUB No. 2014/0215129) in view of Ito (US PG PUB No. 2010/0218064)
As per claim 4, the system according to claim 1, wherein:
However, Kuzmin does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Ito discloses
the reclaim unit includes a first size; and the storage device includes the second reclaim unit, the second reclaim unit including a second size, wherein the first size and the second size are different (see Ito [0067]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to implement a storage device with first and second size units as taught by Ito.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of SLC and MLC storage (see Ito [0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kuzmin to implement a storage device with a first size and second size unit for the benefit of SLC and MLC storage to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 23, the storage device according to claim 21, wherein:
However, Kuzmin does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Ito discloses
the first reclaim unit includes a first size; and the second reclaim unit includes a second size, wherein the first size and the second size are different (see Ito [0067]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to implement a storage device with first and second size units as taught by Ito.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of SLC and MLC storage (see Ito [0067]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kuzmin to implement a storage device with a first size and second size unit for the benefit of SLC and MLC storage to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
RESPONSE TO ARUGMENTS
The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and accompanying arguments.
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