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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 17, the limitations drawn to the file type information and the file size information lack proper antecedent basis because the claims introduce these terms with a subordinate descriptive clause, rendering it unclear if these are intended to be independent structural elements of the claim or merely passive characteristics of the extra header segment. Clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations drawn to “a range corresponding to the file size information” is indefinite and remains being unclear. It is still unknown what this is a range of and the claim as amended fails to provide any boundaries, thresholds, or mathematical criteria to determine how a fixed value yields a range. Clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “to set a file mapping table” is vague and unclear of what structural or algorithmic steps the processor executes to “set” a table. Is this process related or separate from generating or storing? This limitation leaves the boundaries of the controller’s required configurations open to speculation. Clarification is required.
The remaining Claims are similarly rejected as having the same deficiencies as their parent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee [US 12,039,175] in view of NVM Express (NVMe) Base Specification, Revision 2 (hereinafter NVMe).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a storage device comprising [Fig 21]: at least one memory [SSD 3200]; and a controller configured to control an operation of the at least one memory [controller 3210, col 23, line 28-40], to receive, from a host device, a command unit [signal from the host, Col. 23, lines 40-44] including an extra header segment in which file type information and file size information [claim 1] are included, to generate a file mapping table based on the file type information and the file size information and to store the file mapping table in the at least one memory [mapping table, Col. 24, lines 1-3]. Lee fails to teach parsing mapping data out of the extra segment and that the information within the extra segment defines file type or file size attributes to populate a localized file mapping table. NVMe teaches a Streams Directive framework where a host device passes data attribute information inside an extended command parameter to the storage controller wherein the controller extracts this context from the command descriptor to configure and update its internal logical block address mapping tables before or during data allocation [see sections 9.3 and 9.3.1]. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the extra header segment of Lee to carry the attributes as disclosed by NVMe in order to enable host assisted flash management allowing the flash controller to pre allocate blocks and map storage structures before processing heavy payloads.
Claim 2, Lee in view of NVMe discloses the storage device according to claim 1, wherein the file type information is included in a header portion of the extra header segment [claim 1].
Claim 3, Lee in view of NVMe discloses the storage device according to claim 2, wherein the header portion of the extra header segment includes a first header field that includes a value indicating write or read and a second header field that includes the file type information [Claim 1]
Claim 5, Lee in view of NVMe discloses the storage device according to claim 1, wherein the file size information is included in a data portion of the extra header segment [basic header segment, claim 1].
Claims 13 and 17 are similarly rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee [US 9,158,461]; Measuring Performance of Data Storage Systems. See Claims 1-5.
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 MIDYS ROJAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4207. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am -3:00pm M-F.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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.
/MIDYS ROJAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights