2Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 18 February 2026.
Claim 6-7,9-10,25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: controller in claim 1, support for which was taken as FIG 1: 115 and [0022] of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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.
Claim 1-4,8,20-23,26,28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US GP PUB No. 20090150599) in view of Carey (US PG PUB No. 20190258579).
As per claim [1,20,28], Bennett discloses an apparatus (see Bennett FIG 1: 1), comprising:
a non-volatile memory (see Bennett FIG 1: 30); and
a controller (see Bennett FIG 1: 10) coupled with the non-volatile memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
determine whether a checkpoint procedure has been initiated (see Bennett FIG 2A: 570), wherein the checkpoint procedure comprises:
a metadata update phase in which metadata for a file is written to the non-volatile memory (see Bennett FIG 2A: 560 and [0097] ), and
a checkpoint update phase in which checkpoint information about the metadata is written to the non-volatile memory (see Bennett FIG 2A: 580 and [0057]);
[The transaction log is updated subsequent to the metadata (see Bennett [0059]).]
However, Bennett does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Carey discloses
write, based at least in part on determining that the checkpoint procedure has been initiated, the metadata to the non-volatile memory using a first type of write operation that has lower latency than a second type of write operation supported by the non-volatile memory (see Carey FIG 2: 114 and [0050]) ; and
write, based at least in part on determining that the checkpoint procedure has been initiated and based at least in part on writing the metadata, the checkpoint information about the metadata to the non-volatile memory using the first type of write operation (see Carey FIG 2: 114 and [0063]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bennett to further write the metadata, including the checkpoint information, using the first type of write operation as taught by Carey.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improved storage management (see Carey [0010]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bennet to further write the metadata data including the checkpoint data using the first type of write operation as taught by Carey for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim [2,21], the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further
configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive a write command that includes a flag associated with the metadata, wherein initiation of the checkpoint procedure is determined based at least in part on the write command (see Carey [0015]).
[Carey discloses requesting storage for specific types of data, where the identification of the specific type of data is taken as a flag as recited in the claims.]
As per claim [3,22], the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further
configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive a command that indicates initiation of the checkpoint procedure, wherein initiation of the checkpoint procedure is determined based at least in part on the command (see Bennett FIG 5: 570 and [0097])
As per claim [4,23], the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further
configured to cause the apparatus to:
reserve a first set of memory blocks for writing the metadata using the first type of write procedure (see Carey [0015]).; and
reserve a second set of memory blocks for writing the checkpoint information using the first type of write procedure, wherein initiation of the checkpoint procedure is determined after reserving the first and second sets of memory blocks (see Carey [0015]).
[Carey discloses reserving storage based on type of data to be written.]
As per claim [8, 26], the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive, during the checkpoint procedure, a cache command to transfer content from a cache to the non-volatile memory, wherein a portion of the metadata is written to the non- volatile memory based at least in part on the cache command (see FIG 2A: 550 and [0096]); and
[The metadata is stored in a volatile storage (cache) and therefore requires a command to transfer content from the volatile storage to the non-volatile storage.]
receive, during the checkpoint procedure, a write command to write the checkpoint information to the non-volatile memory, wherein the checkpoint information is written to the non-volatile memory based at least in part on the write command (see FIG 2A: 580 and [0097]).
Claim 5,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US GP PUB No. 20090150599) in view of Carey (US PG PUB No. 20190258579 ) as applied to claim 1 and 20 above and further in view of Hart (US Pat No. 6877016).
As per claim [5,24], Bennett in view of Carey discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further
configured to cause the apparatus to:
However, Bennett in view of Carey does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Hart discloses
pause an operation based at least in part on determining that the checkpoint procedure has been initiated (see Hart FIG 5: C and COL 14 LINES 60-67); and
resume the operation based at least in part on determining that the checkpoint
procedure has ended (see Hart FIG 5: F and COL 15 LINES 4-8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Bennett to pause operations during a checkpoint procedure as taught by Hart.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of consistency (see Hart COL 2 LINES 32-66).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bennett to further pause and resume operation as taught by Hart for the benefit of consistency to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 11,27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett (US GP PUB No. 20090150599) in view of Carey (US PG PUB No. 20190258579 ) as applied to claims 1 and 20 above and further in view of Cheon (US PG PUB No. 20080104309).
As per claim [11,27], Bennett in view of Carey discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
However, Bennett in view of Carey does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Cheon discloses
wherein the first type of write operation stores a first quantity of bits per cell and the second type of write operation stores a second quantity of bits per cell, the second quantity larger than the first quantity (see Cheon FIG 1A: 42, 43 and [0034]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bennett to further use SLC memory for metadata as taught by Cheon.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improved storage management according to write pattern (see Cheon [0012]).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bennett to further implement write operations that store a first quantity of bits per cell as taught by Cheon for the benefit of improved storage management according to write pattern to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20170046099: A method and a system for storing metadata. The method includes requesting an update of metadata from an external source. The method includes storing updated metadata to a fast storage medium using an update thread. The method further includes moving the updated metadata from the fast storage medium to a slow storage medium using a flush thread (Abstract).
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. 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.
/KALPIT PARIKH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
KALPIT . PARIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights