DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 6/11/26 amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 14. Claims 1-6 and 8-14 remain pending. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. They are addressed following the repeated rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0053338 to JADON et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0269440 to LIN.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, JADON shows the claimed zoned namespace (ZNS) solid state drive (SSD) in Fig. 4A, for example, as the flash drive. He teaches at 0111 and claim 2 that his flash drive has zones (synonymous with the term “block device” in JADON’s disclosure) and namespaces. He teaches in 0105 that the flash drive is an SSD. Therefore, JADON’s flash drive anticipates the claimed ZNS SSD.
JADON shows the claimed receiving unit as registers 409, for example. He mentions the claimed dividing unit as the memory controller of the flash drive at 0110-0112.
JADON discloses the claimed determining and sending units as the host and interactive designer/allocator. The host is not shown in Fig. 4A, but the host file system is shown. Additionally, Fig. 4B shows a host interface in the memory controller so while the host is not explicitly shown, its presence is understood. It is mentioned throughout JADON’s disclosure.
JADON’s device operates as claimed, as shown in the exemplary operational flow 402 and described at 0104-0115 and elsewhere. More specifically, JADON’s device determines the sizes of the zones and the number of zones and configures his flash drive into zones (block devices, or BDs) of different sizes, as seen in Figs. 4B and 4C (in Fig. 4B, zone/BD0 is 2x2, zone/BD1 is 2x2, zone/BD2 is 1x4, zone/BD3 is 1x4, zone/BD4 is 16x1, and an unlabeled zone/BD is 1x1 covering die2 in channel 15).
Other passages of JADON that are relevant to the claimed invention include 0018, 0019, 0069, 0091, 0104, and 0130.
JADON discloses reserving space at 0070-0071 and Fig. 1B, step 169, with reference to a write buffer backup; at 0100 with reference to scrubbing and relocation logic 389 and 390 shown in Fig. 3F used for swapping reserved erase units; at 0106 with reference to reserved erase units used as wear replacements; and at 0120-0121 and 0158 with reference to a reserved block device/zone BDx shown in Fig. 4E which is reserved for write buffer backup.
JADON does not explicitly disclose that the amount of his reserved space is determined based on a size of at least one zone.
LIN teaches at 0047 (and at 0060 and 0110) that his host determines the size of each zone and the number of zones, among other things. He also teaches that each block within a zone “usually reserves several pages to store system management information, including a write time table, a logical physical mapping table, the check bit of error correction code and the redundant array of independent disks (RAID) parity, etc.” Since each block reserves space for this system management information, it is true that the total amount of reserved space is determined based on the size of at least one zone, since the larger a zone is, the more blocks it will have therein, and therefore the more reserved space for system management information within that zone.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to reserve space in each block of JADON’s device as taught by LIN as a way of keeping management data together with the other data in each block. In fact, this is alluded to by JADON at 0095 where he teaches that “the memory controller uses maintenance logic 377 to manage space allocation and space reclamation, and otherwise to service host system calls for the return of management data.”
Alternatively, if one considers the claimed reserved space to be separate from the zones (more in line with what is disclosed in the specification at 0058, 0059, and 0072), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to determine an amount of reserved space in addition to the zones, the amount of reserved space being based on a size of at least one zone because zones are typically of various sizes (as taught by both JADON and LIN as mentioned above) and it is likely that after allocating zones of various sizes to a particular SSD which has a fixed size, there will obviously generally be some space leftover, unallocated because it is either not needed or because it is smaller than the smallest zone size available. This region of space can either be termed leftover, wasted, unnecessary, reserved, or any other term as desired, but the nature of this space is the same: it is not part of a normal zone and is not treated as normal zones are treated. It can either be ignored, used to store special data, used as spare storage, or any other purpose as desired by the skilled artisan. Since there is no requirement that the number of zones fit evenly in a particular SSD, there will generally be some leftover/reserved space at the end of the SSD where the zones don’t cover. This leftover space is a fractional part of a calculated number of zones since it covers the fraction of the SSD leftover after the zones are allocated.
In yet another alternative interpretation of the claim term “reserved space,” it can be said that LIN’s shared blocks such as B8, shown in Fig. 10 and described in 0060, anticipate the claimed reserved space since the shared blocks are reserved to be shared by plural zones. LIN teaches that this allows plural zones to make use of the same block storing the last bit of data from a zone in a shared block to reduce the wasted space in a block if it were only used for a single zone’s data. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include this technique in JADON’s device to reduce the wasted storage space caused by not sharing blocks among zones. This shared space is a fractional part of a calculated number of zones since it covers the fraction of the SSD leftover after the zones are allocated.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, JADON’s device operates as claimed, as seen in Fig. 4B where there is an unlabeled 1x1 zone (over die2 in channel 15) and two 1x4 zones (BD2 and BD3), for example.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, JADON’s unlabeled zone spans fewer die than his zones BD2 and BD3.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, JADON’s unlabeled zone spans one die, as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, JADON’s device allows the user to input zone configuration information as claimed. See step 404 and the step below 404 in Fig. 4A, as well as step 406, for example. Also note at the top left of Fig. 4A that it says “Zone (Block Device, or BD) Specification (from User/System-Architect)” and “block device qty + per-BD logical block size….” From these passages and others it is clear that the user is able to input the desired size and number of zones, among other information, so as to configure the flash drive as they desire.
The claimed exclusion of one piece of data in a set of four pieces of data (excluding the second number of zones in the first limitation and excluding the first number of zones in the second limitation) would have been obvious. As shown in Fig. 4A, the user/designer/allocator is able to specify the number of zones (block device qty) and the size of the zones (capacity). This is shown by the arrow going into interactive designer/allocator 402. Also going into interactive designer/allocator 402 is the geometry data from the flash drive indicating the overall capacity of the flash drive (the channels, dies/channel, planes/die, EUs/plane, pages/EU, and page size together define the geometry and therefore the capacity of the flash drive). Given this geometry data of the flash drive, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to only require three out of four pieces of data as claimed since the fourth piece of data is trivial to determine when the other three pieces of data are known.
In other words, in the simple case where the user only desired two different size zones, say large and small, if the user specified, for example, 10 small zones and wanted the rest of the flash drive to be large zones, it would be trivial for the controller to allocate 10 small zones and populate the rest of the drive with large zones. The controller could either allocate large zones until the end of the device were reached, or it could calculate the size of the drive given the geometry data, subtract the 10 small zones, and divide the remaining area by the size of the large zone.
The same thing could be done if the user specified how many large zones were desired: the controller could use the size of the large zone, the size of the small zone, and the number of large zones desired and could either allocate small zones until reaching the end of the drive or calculate how many small zones could fit in the remaining area of the drive, after subtracting the space for the desired large zones.
JADON’s device appears to show the user specifying the number of zones and the size of the zones, but it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to allow the user to specify less information and let the controller “fill out” the drive with zones of the size not specified by the user. The simple allocation procedure (allocating additional zones until reaching the end of the drive) or the simple mathematical calculation (subtracting the space taken by the specified zone size and number of that size of zone and then dividing the result by the other specified zone size) are trivial to implement by the skilled artisan and simply represent an obvious technique of allocating zones. This process only requires knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claimed method that the zones are allocated with is not patentable. JADON’s disclosure reveals that it was known to have zones of different sizes together in the same drive and that is the main teaching necessary to render the instant claims obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, JADON mentions the NVMe standard at 0075, 0083, 0085, and 0091. Although JADON does not mention the claimed feature identifiers per se, by mentioning the NVMe standard the various feature identifiers of the NVMe standard would have come to mind, and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use one of the NVMe standard feature identifiers to specify the user input mentioned by JADON as a way to follow good engineering practice and use an existing standard to increase compatibility with other devices. The particular feature identifier to use in the range of 19h to 77h would have been obvious. Using one feature identifier for the user input would mean that feature identifier would not be available for other purposes, so that would be one consideration for the designer to weigh during the design process. This process only requires knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, first paragraph Applicant argues that “Jadon does not disclose or suggest performing a dynamic calculation to determine a number of zones that yields both an integer part and a fractional part” and “Jadon does not encounter or utilize a fractional remainder of a zone calculation.”
In response it is noted that Jadon necessarily performs a calculation to determine a number of zones that yields an integer part since the number of zones that he shows and discloses is an integer number (1, 2, 3, etc.). The remaining space can be termed “fractional part” as claimed since it amounts to a fraction of the total amount of space (comprising an integer number of zones and a leftover amount of space in addition to the zones, or a portion/fraction of each zone, depending on the interpretation as discussed above).
On page 9, first paragraph, Applicant argues that “Lin does not calculate a number of zones, nor does Lin teach utilizing a fractional part of a zone calculation to define an amount of reserved space remaining in the drive in addition to the zones.”
In response it is noted that claims 1, 8, and 14 were rejected with three interpretations (the first being in paragraph 9 of that section and starting with “It would have been…”; the second being in paragraph 10 and starting with “Alternatively,…”; and the third being in paragraph 11 and starting with “In yet another alternative interpretation…”). Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed to the first interpretation exclusively while the second and third interpretations were ignored.
The second and third interpretations (repeated above in the grounds of rejection) are relevant and remain unaddressed by Applicant. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this Office action should be directed to the Examiner by phone at (571) 272-4214.
Any response to this Office action should be labeled appropriately (including serial number, Art Unit 2132, and type of response) and mailed to Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450; hand-carried or delivered to the Customer Service Window at the Knox Building, 501 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314; faxed to (571) 273-8300; or filed electronically using the Patent Center.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the 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 the Patent Center and visit 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.
/Kevin Verbrugge/
Kevin Verbrugge
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights