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 .
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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 10, and 16, the term “relatively low I/O access rate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Also per claims 1, 10, and 16, the term “relatively high I/O access rate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As per claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-20, the claims depend on independent claims 1, 10, and 16 and therefore inherit their deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-11, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blount (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0212678).
As per claims 1, 10, and 16, with claim 1 as exemplary, Blount discloses a storage device having a plurality of dies of blocks of pages of data to store data written from a host system, wherein the storage device includes logic to perform operations (abstract; paragraphs 0015 and 0018; Fig. 1), the operations comprising:
classifying, with a predictive model, Input/Output (I/O) access statistics as one of a first garbage collection rate and a second garbage collection rate, wherein the first garbage collection rate is higher than the second garbage collection rate, wherein the classifier outputs the first garbage collection rate for a first I/O access pattern associated with a relatively low I/O access rate and outputs the second garbage collection rate for a second I/O access pattern associated with a relatively high I/O access rate, wherein the first and the second garbage collection rates specify that garbage collection is performed (claim 1; paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0040-0047; Figs. 2 and 4);
determining available free space (claim 1; paragraph 0012);
in response to determining the classifying the first garbage collection rate, initiating a first garbage collection when the available free space below a first threshold (claim 1; paragraphs 0013 and 0043);
and in response to determining the classifying the second garbage collection rate, initiating a second garbage collection when the available free space is below a second threshold or when the blocks have more than a threshold number of invalid pages (claim 1; paragraphs 0042, 0003, and 0025).
As per claims 2, 11, and 17, with claim 2 as exemplary, Blount discloses the storage device of claim 1, wherein for the second garbage collection rate, the second garbage collection is initiated for determined blocks having more than the threshold number of invalid pages in response to the available free space exceeding the second threshold (claim 1; paragraphs 0042, 0003, and 0025).
As per claim 5, Blount discloses the storage device of claim 1, continually performing the first garbage collection and the second garbage collection according to the first garbage collection rate and the second garbage collection rate, respectively, until a change to the first garbage collection rate or the second garbage collection rate (paragraphs 0074-0075; Fig. 4).
As per claims 6, 13, and 18, with claim 6 as exemplary, Blount discloses the storage device of claim 1, wherein there is a third garbage collection rate based on a third I/O access pattern at the storage device, wherein a full reclamation garbage collection is performed for the third garbage collection rate (Fig. 2, which discloses any garbage collection rate (GC rate 206) based on a given I/O pattern (system load 204)).
As per claim 8, Blount discloses the storage device of claim 1, wherein the determining one of the first garbage collection rate and the second garbage collection rate comprises: receiving, from the host system, indication of one of the first garbage collection rate and the second garbage collection rate determined at the host system (paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0069-0070).
As per claims 9, 15, and 20, with claim 9 as exemplary, Blount discloses the storage device of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the predictive model monitors I/O access patterns at the storage device to determine one of the first garbage collection rate and the second garbage collection rate based on the monitored I/O access patterns, and further comprising: a garbage collection manager to manage garbage collection operations depending on the first garbage collection rate and the second garbage collection rate (claim 1; paragraphs 0011-0013 and 0040-0047; Figs. 1, 2, and 4).
As per claim 19, Blount discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the full reclamation garbage collection comprises: performing a third garbage collection for blocks having a number of invalid pages greater than a threshold number of invalid pages (paragraphs 0042, 0003, and 0025; Fig. 2, which discloses any garbage collection rate (GC rate 206) based on a given I/O pattern (system load 204));
in response to no blocks having a number of invalid pages greater than the threshold number of invalid pages, determining a percentage comprising a number of invalid pages in blocks having less than the threshold number of invalid pages divided by total space (this limitation is contingent upon the condition precedent of no blocks having a number of invalid pages greater than the threshold number of invalid pages. However, the claim does not positively recite that the condition precedent of no blocks having a number of invalid pages greater than the threshold number of invalid pages actually occurs. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that determining a percentage comprising a number of invalid pages in blocks having less than the threshold number of invalid pages divided by total space is not required to occur because the condition precedent is not required to occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS.).
and in response to the percentage greater than a threshold percentage, performing a fourth garbage collection on the blocks with a highest number of invalid pages less than the threshold number of invalid pages (this limitation is contingent upon the condition precedent of the percentage greater than a threshold percentage. However, the claim does not positively recite that the percentage greater than a threshold percentage actually occurs. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation is that performing a fourth garbage collection on the blocks with a highest number of invalid pages less than the threshold number of invalid pages is not required to occur because the condition precedent is not required to occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blount in view of Saxena et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0097403), hereinafter “Saxena”.
As per claims 3 and 12, with claim 3 as exemplary, Blount does not expressly disclose the storage device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: ordering the blocks by number of invalid pages, wherein the first garbage collection and the second garbage collection processes the blocks from a highest number to a lowest number of invalid pages.
Saxena discloses the storage device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: ordering the blocks by number of invalid pages, wherein the first garbage collection and the second garbage collection processes the blocks from a highest number to a lowest number of invalid pages (FIG. 2, [0025]-[0026], “In particular, the block selection process of blocks 204, 206, 208, and 210 includes determining or selecting a best source or victim block from which to copy remaining valid data based on valid pages in the closed block…. This search is an iterative process in which a data storage device controller (e.g., controller 108 in FIG. 1), for example, and more particularly a garbage collector circuit (e.g., circuit 118) sequentially examines each of the closed blocks in the closed block pool by determining whether a minimum valid page count (MinValidPageCount or MinVPC) is less than a current MinVPC as illustrated by decision block 208.” E.g. continuously performing garbage collection on blocks ranked by highest to lowest number of invalid pages, or lowest to highest number of valid pages).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blount’s adjusting garbage collection to include Saxena’s garbage collection ranking blocks based on number of invalid pages, to select best source/victim blocks for garbage collection (see Saxena [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Arpan P. Savla whose telephone number is (571)272-1077. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-6PM ET.
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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights