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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendments filed on June 30, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statement filed on April 1, 2025. U.S. patents, patent application publications, and foreign patent documents have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “determining, by the processing circuitry, a location in the memory at which to store the data based on one or more placement IDs corresponding to matched mapped system characteristics of the data placement table and without regard to the destination address; and causing, by the processing circuitry, the data to be stored at the location.” However, it is unclear how a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to operate the device to retrieve the stored data if it was stored without regard to the destination address. Claim 1 also recites “determining, by the processing circuitry, whether any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement table, wherein each respective mapped system characteristic corresponds to a respective placement identification (ID)”, however it is unclear how data would be read from the device if (multiple) requests with the same characteristic are matched to the same mapping entry with a (single) respective placement ID. Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the specification of the instant application provides additional description relating to the method of claim 1, but do not clarify how a host device or a person having ordinary skill in the art could effectively retrieve data that the device has stored. Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to use the invention as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 1 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to operate the device to retrieve the stored data. Claim 2 recites “in response to determining that any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics does not match with the mapped system characteristics of the data placement table: mapping the information indicative of one or more system characteristics to an available placement ID; and storing the data at a location in memory based on the available placement ID”. As in claim 1, the data is stored through a mapping of information indicative of one or more system characteristics instead of the destination address included in the write request. For the same rationale as in claim 1, it is unclear how the data would be retrieved and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be enabled to use the invention as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 4 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, it recites “wherein the information indicative of one or more system characteristics comprises any one or more of: a physical function, a virtual function”. However, it is not clear what a physical function or a virtual function is, and the specification of the instant application does not clarify or define the meanings of these terms. Since the information indicative of one or more system characteristics is used to determine the placement of data on the (memory) device, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to know the meaning of “physical function” and “virtual function” in order to be enabled to store the data according to the claimed method.
Regarding claims 9 and 14, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 4 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
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, 6, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. patent application publication 20160253257 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim, in view of Li et al. (U.S. patent application publication 20240411477 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches A method for storing data on a device comprising memory (Kim data storage device 200), the method comprising: receiving, by processing circuitry (Kim controller 210), a write request from a host, the write request comprising information indicative of one or more system characteristics and a destination address at which to store the data; (“The processor 211 may map a logical address, which is provided when receiving a write request from the host device” [Kim paragraph 36]; wherein processor 211 is processing circuitry that is part of controller 210 of the storage device 200 (see Kim Fig. 2); and “the data storage device 200 may store a context identifier, in the nonvolatile memory device 220, which is provided together with a write request for data” [Kim 55]; wherein a context identifier is information indicative of one or more system characteristics and the logical address is a destination address at which to store the data) determining, by the processing circuitry, the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement table, (“The processor 211 may map a logical address, which is provided when receiving a write request from the host device 100, to a physical address on the nonvolatile memory device 220. The processor 211 may determine a memory region, in which write-requested data is to be stored, according to a context identifier assigned to the data, and map a physical address of the determined memory region to a logical address provided from the host device 100” [Kim paragraph 36]. And “FIGS. 3A and 3B are tables exemplarily showing memory blocks BLK11 to BLK1i or BLK21 to BLK2i corresponding to the respective context identifiers CTXID1 to CTXIDi. The processor 211 may match the respective context identifiers CTXID1 to CTXIDi, which are to be provided from the host device 100, with corresponding memory regions. For example, the processor 211 may match the context identifiers CTXID1 to CTXIDi with memory blocks, respectively” [Kim paragraphs 45-46]) wherein each respective mapped system characteristic corresponds to a respective placement identification (ID); (The memory blocks BLK11 to BLK1i or BLK21 to BLK2i corresponding to the respective context identifiers CTXID1 to CTXIDi are respective placement identifications) determining, by the processing circuitry, a location in the memory at which to store the data based on one or more placement IDs corresponding to matched mapped system characteristics of the data placement table and without regard to the destination address; (The processor 211 may determine a memory region, in which write-requested data is to be stored, according to a context identifier assigned to the data, and map a physical address of the determined memory region to a logical address provided from the host device 100.” [Kim paragraph 36] and “The memory cell array 225 may include a plurality of memory blocks BLK1 to BLKm. Each of the memory blocks BLK1 to BLKm may include a plurality of pages (e.g., P1 to Pn). ... The page may be a unit in which a write operation or a read operation is performed.” [Kim paragraph 44]. The write data would be stored with regard to the available pages within a memory block (placement ID) corresponding to a context identifier, not with regard to the logical address (the destination address)) and causing, by the processing circuitry, the data to be stored at the location (“the storing of the data comprises: selecting a memory region corresponding to the context identifier; and storing the data in the selected memory region.” [Kim claim 17]).
Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose determining, by the processing circuitry, whether any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement table.
However, Li teaches determining, by the processing circuitry, whether any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement (“The storage device 200 may receive a request (e.g., a memory write request) … A data placement manager DPM may receive the LBA information from the conversion component 210 and may determine whether the request includes FDP information associated an FDP configuration” [Li paragraph 82]. Wherein FDP information would be information indicative of one or more system characteristics, an FDP configuration would be a mapping of system characteristics, and an association between the two would be a form of matching. Determining whether there is FDP information associated with an FDP configuration would require determining whether any of the FDP information actually is associated with an FDP configuration, which would amount to determining whether any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement.)
Kim and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage management.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim and Li before him or her, to modify the method of Kim to include the attributes of determining, by the processing circuitry, whether any of the information indicative of one or more system characteristics match with mapped system characteristics of a data placement of Li because it will enhance apparatus efficiency.
The motivation for doing so would be the method of Kim assumes that write requests will always have information regarding system characteristics to use to inform data placement. Li includes a check to see if such information is actually present. Incorporating this check (determination step) into Kim would improve efficiency and compatibility of the storage device when such information is not provided with the write request. For example, Li paragraph 82 teaches sending an error message to the host when FDP configuration information is not provided, instead of trying to (likely unsuccessfully) execute the requested write.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim and Li to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 1 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Kim/Li teach The method of claim 1, wherein the information indicative of one or more system characteristics comprises any one or more of: a physical function, a virtual function, a namespace ID, a submission queue ID, a write operation length, and a port ID (“the host device 100 may assign a context identifier to data to be stored in the data storage device 200, on the basis of the attribute information of the data. The attribute information of data may include information on the type of data, the size of data, an update frequency, and a partition in which data is to be stored. The host device 100 may assign the same context identifier to pieces of data having a mutually similar attribute” [Kim paragraph 63]. Wherein the size of data would be a write operation length).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 4 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Li, further in view of Yang et al. (U.S. patent application publication 20230393906 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 5, Kim/Li teach The method of claim 1.
Kim/Li do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the host is a first host associated with a first port and wherein receiving a write request from a host comprises receiving a write request from one of a plurality of ports, each of which is associated with a respective host, wherein each respective port of the plurality of ports is associated with a respective port ID.
However, Yang teaches wherein the host is a first host associated with a first port and wherein receiving a write request from a host comprises receiving a write request from one of a plurality of ports, each of which is associated with a respective host, wherein each respective port of the plurality of ports is associated with a respective port ID (“Although one host and one storage device is depicted, the storage system 700 may include multiple hosts” [Yang paragraph 74]; “At 502, one or more HCPUs of the memory device (e.g., SSD) may receive a workload (e.g., data block or command) from a host application. The workload includes an ID” [Yang paragraph 48]; “wherein a type of the identifier is based on the host application, and comprises a namespace ID, a stream ID, or a port ID” [Yang claim 2]. Wherein it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that there are a plurality of ports because otherwise there would be no necessity in identifying a port. Since the port ID is based on the host, the port would be associated with a respective host. Furthermore, the workload could be a write request (particularly in the case of the workload being a data block) and any of the multiple hosts of Yang and the respective port ID of the host could be arbitrarily selected as a first host having a first port).
Kim/Li and Yang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of data storage management.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kim/Li and Yang before him or her, to modify the method of Kim/Li to include the attributes of wherein the host is a first host associated with a first port and wherein receiving a write request from a host comprises receiving a write request from one of a plurality of ports, each of which is associated with a respective host, wherein each respective port of the plurality of ports is associated with a respective port ID of Yang because it will enhance apparatus efficiency.
The motivation for doing so would be incorporating port ID could be used as an additional point of data in the context IDs (as in Kim), which would enhance the ability of the storage device to organize data efficiently and effectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kim/Li and Yang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the applicant is directed to the rejection to claim 5 above as the claims are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of Kim, Li, or Yang teach or disclose stale placement IDs, nor would it have been obvious to include stale placement IDs as recited in claim 3, 8, and 13.
Response to Remarks
The examiner thanks the applicant for their remarks of June 30, 2025. The remarks have been accepted and fully considered.
In light of the amendments to the claims, all claim objections indicated in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to the claims, all 112(a) and 112(b) rejections indicated in the previous Office action are withdrawn.
In light of the amendments to claim 6, the objection to claim 6 is withdrawn.
On pages 6-7 of their remarks, the applicant argues that the (amended) claims 1-15 overcome the 101 rejections made in the previous office action. The 101 rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140149653 A1 – Udipi et al. “VARIABLE MAPPING OF MEMORY ACCESSES TO REGIONS WITHIN A MEMORY”
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