DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
The following claim languages are not clear and indefinite:
As per claims 1, 11 and 17 it is not clear if the “namespace” is just a label for the “reclaim group”; or it is a software container that contains the “reclaim group”.
It is not clear if the “reclaim unit handle” corresponds to a “reclaim unit” of the “reclaim group” or it is some other entity that is also contained in the “namespace”. As such it is not clear if the assigned “reclaim unit handle” is assigned to the whole “reclaim group”; or it is assigned to a “reclaim unit” of the “reclaim group”; or it is assigned to something outside of the “reclaim group”.
It is not clear if the “segment of the memory device” is one of the “reclaim unit” of the “reclaim group”, or the whole “reclaim group”, or some other memory space that is referenced by the “reclaim unit handle”.
The dependent claims do not cure the 112(b) issues of their respective parent claims. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as those presented for their respective parent claims.
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 1-9 and 11-20are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0012579) in view of Kashyap et al (U.S. Pub. 2022/0066807).
Kashyap reference has been previously cited in IDS.
As per claim 1 Helmick teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a memory system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device (Figs. 4 and 5) to perform operations comprising:
creating a namespace by allocating a reclaim group, the reclaim group comprising a plurality of reclaim units ([0057], [0069]-[0071] storage is divided into namespaces which corresponds to different reclaim groups that each contain one or more reclaim units);
assigning a reclaim unit handle to the namespace ([0074], [0075], [0077] one or more reclaim unit handles are mapped to namespace);
receiving a command to perform an operation associated with the namespace; identifying a segment of the memory device based on the reclaim unit handle; and performing the operation on the segment of the memory device ([0094] commands such as write command can be issued for a namespace and through the use of reclaim unit handles associated with the namespace, the write command can be written memory managed by the associated reclaim unit).
Helmick does not explicitly teach that the command to perform an operation associated with the namespace can come from a virtual machine running on a host computing system.
However Kashyap explicitly teaches that the command to perform an operation associated with the namespace can come from a virtual machine running on a host computing system ([0056]-[0058] virtual machines are bind to different namespaces of storage partitions, and the virtual machines can issue commands to their bound namespaces).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Kashyap and Helmick because both are directed towards management and sharing of storage devices. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kashyap into that of Helmick because Kashyap further improves efficiency of management and sharing of storage devices ([0001], [0003]).
As per claim 2 Helmick teaches wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: selecting, in view of a number, the plurality of reclaim units to form the reclaim group, wherein the number comprises an integer part of a quotient of a size of the namespace divided by a size of the reclaim unit ([0071], [0064], [0065] instructions are used to specify a number of reclaim units to be included in a reclaim group based, and different number of reclaim groups can fit inside different namespaces; this means that the number of reclaim units in a namespace can obviously be determined based on a size of the reclaim units vs. size of the namespace).
As per claim 3 Helmick teaches wherein the command specifies the namespace, and wherein identifying the segment of the memory device further comprises identifying the reclaim unit handle assigned to the namespace ([0074]).
As per claim 4 Helmick teaches wherein the reclaim unit handle is unique to the namespace, and the namespace is unique to the reclaim unit handle ([0074], [0075] namespace identifier may include placement handle that may reference to a reclaim unit, thus a reclaim unit handle can be unique to the namespace and vice versa).
As per claim 5 Kashyap teaches wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: presenting a plurality of physical functions (PFs), virtual functions (VFs), or assignable device interfaces (ADIs) to the host computing system, wherein the namespace corresponds to a first one of the plurality of physical functions (PFs), virtual functions (VFs), or assignable device interfaces (ADIs) ([0042]-[0044] namespaces of different partitions of SSD devices are bind to virtual machines as PCIe endpoints with corresponding PCIe physical functions of the virtual machines).
As per claim 6 Kashyap teaches wherein the namespace corresponds to the first one and a second one of the plurality of physical functions (PFs), virtual functions (VFs), or assignable device interfaces (ADIs) ([0057]; [0042]-[0044] namespace N0 can be bind to different SSDs and be presented as different PCIe endpoints with their corresponding PCIe physical functions).
As per claim 7 Kashyap teaches wherein another namespace corresponds to the first one of the plurality of physical functions (PFs), virtual functions (VFs), or assignable device interfaces (ADIs) ([0061], [0062] the number of bindings, and their corresponding PCIe endpoints and PCIe physical functions, can be flexibly configured in accordance to configuration data, this means that there could obviously be a virtual machine that only has one namespace bound to it and thus only have one PCIe endpoint and PCIe physical function).
As per claim 8 Helmick as modified by Kashyap teaches wherein the virtual machine is unaware of the reclaim unit handle (Helmick [0079], [0086] commands to storage devices does not need to specify placement handle which are mapped to different reclaim unit handles; this means that the issuer of such commands is unaware of the reclaim unit handles; Kashyap [0044] issuer of commands to storage devices can be VMs that have access to the storage devices).
As per claim 9 Helmick teaches wherein the operation comprises a write operation ([0094]).
As per claims 11-16 they are method versions of system claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, where claims 12 and 13 corresponds to different parts of claim 2. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, respectively.
As per claims 17-20 they are reworded product versions of system claims 1, 2, 4, and 8. In particular claim 18 is a reworded version of claim 2. Claim 18 discloses wherein the instructions cause the processing device to perform operations further comprising: calculating a number as a sum of an integer part of a quotient of a size of the namespace divided by a size of the reclaim unit and an extra number; and selecting, in view of the number, the plurality of reclaim units to form the reclaim group. This is just basic math that calculates number of reclaim units based on its relative size to the size of a namespace that contains them, the end result is that the total size of the number of reclaim units will not exceed the size of the namespace, this is obviously taught by Helmick in [0071], [0064], [0065] instructions are used to specify a number of reclaim units to be included in a reclaim group based, and different number of reclaim groups can fit inside different namespaces; this means that the number of reclaim units in a namespace can obviously be determined based on a size of the reclaim units vs. size of the namespace). Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons, mutatis mutandis, as those presented for claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8, respectively.
Claims 10 is rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick et al. (U.S. Pub. 2024/0012579) in view of Kashyap et al (U.S. Pub. 2022/0066807) and in further view of Zheng (U.S. Pub. 2018/0278680).
Kashyap reference has been previously cited in IDS.
As per claim 10 Helmick as modified by Kashyap teaches wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: receiving, from a host computing device, a command to delete data associated with the virtual machine; identifying one or more namespaces associated with the virtual machine; and freeing each reclaim group associated with the one or more namespaces, wherein each reclaim group represents an isolated segment of the memory device (Helmick [0071], [0064], [0061] commands to storage devices are routed only to their correspond namespaces with their corresponding reclaim groups; data in the namespaces are isolated from each other; [0133]-[0137] the commands to storage devices can be sanitization commands that erase corresponding reclaim units of corresponding reclaim groups, thereby freeing the sanitized reclaim groups; Kashyap [0044], [0057] VMs are each bind to different namespaces, which is a form of identification of the namespaces; commands sent to storage devices are associated with a VM and its corresponding namespaces).
Helmick as modified by Kashyap does not explicitly teach that the command to delete data associated with the virtual machine can be associated with command to delete the virtual machine.
However Zheng teaches that the command to delete data associated with the virtual machine can be associated with command to delete the virtual machine ([0033], [0049] removal of virtual server triggers removal of contents of its associated partition of storage server).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the prior to the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Zheng and Helmick as modified by Kashyap because both are directed towards sharing of I/O devices by virtualized entities. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zheng into that of Helmick as modified by Kashyap because Kashyap further improves efficiency of sharing of I/O devices by virtualized entities ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BING ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1745. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571) 272-3677. 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.
/BING ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights