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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responding to the arguments filed on 11/07/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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) 1,3,6,9-10,12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Bektas et al. (US 20170153906 A1) hereinafter KIM and Shih and Bektas.
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches A method of operating a storage device which communicates with a host device, the method comprising: (“a storage system 10 may include a plurality of hosts 11 to 1n (also referred to herein as host devices) and a storage device 100 communicatively coupled thereto”) (paragraph [0027] line 2-3) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates storage system 10 may include a plurality of hosts communicatively coupled with storage device)
receiving a first request indicating a setting operation of a first virtual function corresponding to a first virtual machine from the host device executing the first virtual machine, the first request including first requirement level information of the first virtual machine; (“in operation S101, the storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13, respectively”) (paragraph [0062] line 1-2)
(“the performance information may include information about (e.g., information indicating) a minimum performance and a maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts 11 to 13”) (paragraph [0063] line 1-2) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in step S101 storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13 respectively and performance information may include minimum performance and maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts. In other words, storage device may receive performance information from hosts requiring minimum and maximum performance requirements)
KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM does not explicitly teach setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device
On the other hand, Shih which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device (see Fig 7 and 8, paragraph [0078], illustrates in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command)
Both KIM and Shih relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting according to host requirement. On the other hand, Shih also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM with Shih to enable meeting the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command. The combined system of KIM - Shih allows administrators to deploy various applications using virtual machine (VM) templates for creating virtual machines as mentioned in paragraph [0003]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih improves latency performance. See Shih, paragraph [0058].
KIM in view of Shih teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih combination does not explicitly teach from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function
On the other hand, Banerjee which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function (see Fig 2, paragraph [0035] and [0036], illustrates virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM with Shih for the reasons set forth above. In
addition, KIM, Shih and Banerjee are considered analogous arts, because they all
relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Banerjee also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee to specify storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee allows the processing devices on the storage array system to share access, in parallel, with connected host devices while executing instances of an operating system designed for a uniprocessor environment as mentioned in paragraph [0005]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee improves performance. See Banerjee, paragraph [0014]
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination does not explicitly teach providing the host device with a done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. Also, KIM does not teach in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied.
On the other hand, Bektas which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches providing the host device with a done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. (“the computer system may notify the user that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied”) (paragraph [0055] line 1-2) (i.e. computer system may notify the user or host that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied. In other words, in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee and Bektas are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Bektas also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas to enable device performance attribution setting in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Bektas allows VM resource allocator to determine a resource state of the virtual machine based on how much of the allocated resources the virtual machine is using as mentioned in paragraph [0017]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Bektas improves VM resource allocation. See Bektas, paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 3, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the defining the first physical path includes adjusting mapping relationships between physical path of the plurality of memory chips in the storage device and a plurality of virtual functions.
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the defining the first physical path includes adjusting mapping relationships between physical path of the plurality of memory chips in the storage device and a plurality of virtual functions. (see Fig 9, paragraph [0109], illustrates storage device may process commands CMD1 to CMD3 of the submission queues SQ1 to SQ3 respectively corresponding to hosts 11 to 13 may adjust physical levels of physical functions PF1 to PF3 respectively corresponding to hosts based on performance information and physical levels may mean adjusting mapping)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the storage device includes: a physical function configured to communicate with the host device; a plurality of virtual functions executable by the physical function; and (“plurality of hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently of each other may require a specific performance
an attribution manager configured to manage a plurality of performance attributions respectively corresponding to the plurality of virtual functions, the plurality of virtual functions including the first virtual function, and the plurality of performance attributions including the first performance attribution.
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the storage device includes: a physical function configured to communicate with the host device; a plurality of virtual functions executable by the physical function; and (“plurality of hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently of each other may require a specific performance (e.g., a specific number (e.g., quantity) of commands processed per unit time and/or a specific size of inputs/outputs processed per unit time with regard to the given host based on processing one or more commands from the given host device through the corresponding physical function PF) depending on a type or an operation manner for the purpose of accessing the storage device 100”) (paragraph [0031] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates hosts 11-1n configured to access storage device 100 independently requiring specific performance through the corresponding physical function PF)
an attribution manager configured to manage a plurality of performance attributions respectively corresponding to the plurality of virtual functions, the plurality of virtual functions including the first virtual function, and the plurality of performance attributions including the first performance attribution. (“the storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may include a performance manager 111, also referred to herein interchangeably as performance manager circuitry. The performance manager 111 may be configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n and may schedule commands respectively corresponding to the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n”) (paragraph [0032] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may include a performance manager 111 which may be configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n for various virtual functions)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 6. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 6, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving, by the physical function, a third request indicating an attribution information read operation from the host device;
providing, by the physical function, the attribution manager with a fourth request for obtaining first attribution information corresponding to the first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the third request;
providing, by the attribution manager, the physical function with the first attribution information stored while setting the first performance attribution, based on the fourth request; and
providing, by the physical function, the first attribution information provided from the attribution manager to the host device.
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 6, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving, by the physical function, a third request indicating an attribution information read operation from the host device;
providing, by the physical function, the attribution manager with a fourth request for obtaining first attribution information corresponding to the first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the third request; (“Each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently of each other may require a specific performance (e.g., a specific number (e.g., quantity) of commands processed per unit time and/or a specific size of inputs/outputs processed per unit time with regard to the given host based on processing one or more commands from the given host device through the corresponding physical function PF) depending on a type or an operation manner for the purpose of accessing the storage device 100”) (paragraph [0031] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently with a specific performance level corresponding to physical function PF depending on a type of operation. In other words, hosts can independently access storage device with physical function performance requirement for an operation which can be read or any other operation)
providing, by the attribution manager, the physical function with the first attribution information stored while setting the first performance attribution, based on the fourth request; and
providing, by the physical function, the first attribution information provided from the attribution manager to the host device. (“The performance manager 111 may be configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n and may schedule commands respectively corresponding to the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n. In some example embodiments, the level (e.g., performance level) of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n may be set based on performance information (e.g., a minimum performance or a maximum performance) of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n and the throughput of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n”) (paragraph [0031] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates performance manager 111 may be configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n and may schedule commands respectively corresponding to the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n based on performance information)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving a fifth request indicating a memory operation from the host device, wherein the memory operation includes at least one of a write operation, a read operation, a delete operation, a re-setting operation of the first virtual function, or a deallocation operation of the first virtual function by the first virtual machine; and
performing the memory operation based on the fifth request.
On the other hand, Bektas which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving a fifth request indicating a memory operation from the host device, wherein the memory operation includes at least one of a write operation, a read operation, a delete operation, a re-setting operation of the first virtual function, or a deallocation operation of the first virtual function by the first virtual machine; and
performing the memory operation based on the fifth request. (“the computer system may determine that the request is approved and may temporarily allocate the requested amount of the system resource to the virtual machine at operation 206 and the method 200 may end.”) (paragraph [0052] line 2-4)
(“the adjustment to the resource entitlement may be granted for a specific period of time. After the specific period of time elapses, the computer system may deallocate the additional system resource, reverting the resource entitlement for the virtual machine back to its default amount”) (paragraph [0053] line 1-3) (i.e. Fig 2 illustrates in step 206 computer system may determine that the request is approved and may temporarily allocate the requested amount of the system resource to the virtual machine where adjustment to the resource entitlement may be granted for a specific period of time and after that time computer system may deallocate the additional system resource, reverting the resource entitlement for the virtual machine back to its default amount. In other words, computer system after receiving last request may allocate resources and when it’s done and may revert back to default and deallocate resources)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first request further indicates a setting operation of a second virtual function corresponding to a second virtual machine executable by the host device and further includes second requirement level information of the second virtual machine,
the method further comprises setting a second performance attribution of the second virtual function, based on the second requirement level information,
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first request further indicates a setting operation of a second virtual function corresponding to a second virtual machine executable by the host device and further includes second requirement level information of the second virtual machine, (“in operation S101, the storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13, respectively”) (paragraph [0062] line 1-2)
(“the performance information may include information about (e.g., information indicating) a minimum performance and a maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts 11 to 13”) (paragraph [0063] line 1-2) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in step S101 storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13 respectively and performance information may include minimum performance and maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts. In other words, storage device may receive performance information from multiple hosts with multiple performance requirements)
the method further comprises setting a second performance attribution of the second virtual function, based on the second requirement level information, (“In operation S102, the storage device 100 may set respective levels (e.g., performance levels) of all the physical functions PF to a high level HIGH, which may be referred to as a “first level”. For example, the performance manager 111 (in particular, the performance level manager 111b) included in the storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may set levels of the first to third physical functions PF1 to PF3 respectively corresponding to the first to third hosts 11 to 13 to “HIGH””) (paragraph [0065] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in step S102 storage device 100 may set respective performance levels of all the physical functions PF to high level HIGH first level where performance manager 111 (Fig 1) may set levels of the first to third physical functions PF1 to PF3 respectively corresponding to hosts. In other words, storage device performance manager may set respective performance levels based on multiple requirements from multiple hosts as first level)
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach the done response further indicates that the second performance attribution is set, and the second performance attribution is different from the first performance attribution.
On the other hand, Bektas which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches the done response further indicates that the second performance attribution is set, and the second performance attribution is different from the first performance attribution. (“the computer system may notify the user that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied”) (paragraph [0055] line 1-2) (i.e. computer system may notify the user or host that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied. In other words, in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the storage device and the host device are configured to communicate with each other based on an NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory express) protocol, and the first performance attribution defines a transmission speed of a data chunk to be output to a completion queue by the first virtual function.
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the storage device and the host device are configured to communicate with each other based on an NVMe (Non-Volatile Memory express) protocol, and the first performance attribution defines a transmission speed of a data chunk to be output to a completion queue by the first virtual function. (“host interface circuit 114 may communicate with the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n in compliance with a given communication protocol. In some example embodiments, the given interface protocol may include at least one of various host interfaces such as a PCI-express (Peripheral Component Interconnect express) interface, an NVMe (nonvolatile memory express) interface”) (paragraph [0043] line 1-4)
(“a “performance” of a given host device and/or a performance “serviced” to the given host device may refer to a number (e.g., quantity) of commands processed per unit time and/or a size of inputs/outputs processed per unit time”) (paragraph [0068] line 13-14) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates host interface circuit 114 may communicate with the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n which may include NVMe (nonvolatile memory express) interface and performance of the interface may refer to commands processed per unit time or speed)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, KIM teaches A method of operating a storage device which communicates with a host device, the method comprising:
receiving a first request indicating a setting operation of a first virtual function and a second virtual function from the host device executing a first virtual machine and a second virtual machine, the first virtual function corresponding to the first virtual machine, the second virtual function corresponding to the second virtual machine, and the first request including first requirement level information of the first virtual machine and second requirement level information of the second virtual machine; (“in operation S101, the storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13, respectively”) (paragraph [0062] line 1-2)
(“the performance information may include information about (e.g., information indicating) a minimum performance and a maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts 11 to 13”) (paragraph [0063] line 1-2) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in step S101 storage device 100 may receive performance information from the first to third hosts 11 to 13 respectively and performance information may include minimum performance and maximum performance of each of the first to third hosts. In other words, storage device may receive performance information from multiple hosts with multiple performance requirements)
setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; setting a second performance attribution of the second virtual function, based on the second requirement level information, the second performance attribution being different from the first performance attribution; and (“In operation S102, the storage device 100 may set respective levels (e.g., performance levels) of all the physical functions PF to a high level HIGH, which may be referred to as a “first level”. For example, the performance manager 111 (in particular, the performance level manager 111b) included in the storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may set levels of the first to third physical functions PF1 to PF3 respectively corresponding to the first to third hosts 11 to 13 to “HIGH””) (paragraph [0065] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in step S102 storage device 100 may set respective performance levels of all the physical functions PF to high level HIGH first level where performance manager 111 (Fig 1) may set levels of the first to third physical functions PF1 to PF3 respectively corresponding to hosts. In other words, storage device performance manager may set respective performance levels based on multiple requirements from multiple hosts as first level)
KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM does not explicitly teach setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device
setting a second performance attribution of the second virtual function, based on the second requirement level information; and the second
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the second virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device
On the other hand, Shih which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a first physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device (see Fig 7 and 8, paragraph [0078], illustrates in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command)
setting a second performance attribution of the second virtual function, based on the second requirement level information; and the second
performance attribution defines a second physical path connected to memory chips exclusively allocated to the second virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device (see Fig 5, 7 and 8, paragraph [0037] and [0078], illustrates performance capability or attributes of data device may include read latency, switching latency and so on. In other words, more than one performance attribution may be set for data device)
Both KIM and Shih relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting according to host requirement. On the other hand, Shih also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command and more than one performance attribution may be set for data device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM with Shih to enable meeting the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command and more than one performance attribution may be set for data device. The combined system of KIM - Shih allows administrators to deploy various applications using virtual machine (VM) templates for creating virtual machines as mentioned in paragraph [0003]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih improves latency performance. See Shih, paragraph [0058].
KIM in view of Shih teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih combination does not explicitly teach from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function
from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the second virtual function
On the other hand, Banerjee which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function
from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the second virtual function
(see Fig 2, paragraph [0035] and [0036], illustrates virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM with Shih for the reasons set forth above. In
addition, KIM, Shih and Banerjee are considered analogous arts, because they all
relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Banerjee also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee to specify storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee allows the processing devices on the storage array system to share access, in parallel, with connected host devices while executing instances of an operating system designed for a uniprocessor environment as mentioned in paragraph [0005]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee improves performance. See Banerjee, paragraph [0014]
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination does not explicitly teach providing the host device with a done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. Also, KIM does not teach in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied.
On the other hand, Bektas which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches providing the host device with a done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. (“the computer system may notify the user that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied”) (paragraph [0055] line 1-2) (i.e. computer system may notify the user or host that the requested adjustment of a system resource was either granted or denied. In other words, in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee and Bektas are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Bektas also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas to enable device performance attribution setting in response to user or host request for storage performance resource requirements computer system may notify if the request if granted or denied. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Bektas allows VM resource allocator to determine a resource state of the virtual machine based on how much of the allocated resources the virtual machine is using as mentioned in paragraph [0017]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Bektas improves VM resource allocation. See Bektas, paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 17, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 16. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 16, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving a second request indicating an attribution information read operation from the host device; and
providing the host device with first attribution information stored while setting the first performance attribution and second attribution information stored while setting the second performance attribution, based on the second request.
On the other hand, KIM which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 16, further comprising: after providing the done response to the host device, receiving a second request indicating an attribution information read operation from the host device; and
providing the host device with first attribution information stored while setting the first performance attribution and second attribution information stored while setting the second performance attribution, based on the second request. (“Each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently of each other may require a specific performance (e.g., a specific number (e.g., quantity) of commands processed per unit time and/or a specific size of inputs/outputs processed per unit time with regard to the given host based on processing one or more commands from the given host device through the corresponding physical function PF) depending on a type or an operation manner for the purpose of accessing the storage device 100”) (paragraph [0031] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently with a specific performance level corresponding to physical function PF depending on a type of operation. In other words, hosts can independently access storage device with physical function performance requirement for an operation which can be read or any other operation)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 17.
Claim(s) 2,4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Bektas et al. (US 20170153906 A1) and further in view of Koelewijn et al. (US 20230205550 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn.
Regarding claim 2, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function.
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function. (“mediating resource brokering services 151/161 can be situated in the Intranet 150 (as shown for brokering service(s) 151) and/or in the Internet or Cloud 155/160 (as shown for brokering service(s) 161) and can determine how many VM's and/or which portions of the VM's (instantiated inside the Intra-Enterprise servers 130 or in the In-Cloud servers 140) is/are allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under ideal conditions (e.g., data processing bandwidths, memory capacities and read/write bandwidths, communications capacity and send/receive bandwidths”) (paragraph [0025] line 13-18) (i.e. Fig 1E illustrates resource brokering services 151/161 can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under condition of data processing bandwidths, memory capacities. In other words, resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities etc)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih – Bektas combination with Koelewijn to enable resource brokering services which can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 4, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a maximum power consumption value permitted for the first virtual function. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user.
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a maximum power consumption value permitted for the first virtual function. (“aside from the client-side end users, the enterprise computer system 100 will have further users who act as system administrators. These folk typically determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user who are members of the enterprise organization”) (paragraph [0030] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 1A illustrates enterprise computer system 100 have users who act as system administrators and can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. In other words, enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Koelewijn to enable enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM- Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 13, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first performance attribution defines a first data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function, the second performance attribution defines a second data bandwidth allocated to the second virtual function, and the first data bandwidth is different from the second data bandwidth. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities and each may have its own bandwidth requirement.
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first performance attribution defines a first data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function, the second performance attribution defines a second data bandwidth allocated to the second virtual function, and the first data bandwidth is different from the second data bandwidth. (“mediating resource brokering services 151/161 can be situated in the Intranet 150 (as shown for brokering service(s) 151) and/or in the Internet or Cloud 155/160 (as shown for brokering service(s) 161) and can determine how many VM's and/or which portions of the VM's (instantiated inside the Intra-Enterprise servers 130 or in the In-Cloud servers 140) is/are allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under ideal conditions (e.g., data processing bandwidths, memory capacities and read/write bandwidths, communications capacity and send/receive bandwidths”) (paragraph [0025] line 13-18) (i.e. Fig 1E illustrates resource brokering services 151/161 can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under condition of data processing bandwidths, memory capacities. In other words, resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities and each may have its own bandwidth requirement)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities and each may have its own bandwidth requirement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Koelewijn to enable resource brokering services which can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities and each may have its own bandwidth requirement. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
Regarding claim 14, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 12, wherein the second performance attribution defines a second physical path connected to second memory chips exclusively allocated to the second virtual function from among the plurality of memory chips in the storage device, and an input/output of the first physical path is separated from an input/output of the second physical path. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting induvial paths for each workload.
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 12, wherein
the second performance attribution defines a second physical path connected to second memory chips exclusively allocated to the second virtual function from among the plurality of memory chips in the storage device, and an input/output of the first physical path is separated from an input/output of the second physical path. (“the illustrated workload scripts 136 and measurements-reporting application 139 as well as measurement definitions 138 that define what types of measurements are to be taken and reported (139a). As indicated by reporting paths 139b, . . . , 139z”) (paragraph [0039] line 16-18) (i.e. Fig 1C illustrates workload scripts 136 and measurements-reporting application 139 as well as measurement definitions 138 define what types of measurements are to be taken and reported by reporting paths 139b, . . . , 139z. In other words, workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting induvial paths for each workload)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting induvial paths for each workload. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Koelewijn to enable workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting induvial paths for each workload. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Bektas et al. (US 20170153906 A1) and further in view of Keshava et al. (US 20210405899 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Keshava.
Regarding claim 5, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the first virtual function. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the first requirement level information indicates a performance level for the first virtual machine, and the first performance attribution defines a maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the first virtual function. (“It is contemplated that further vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature which can, for example, reduce performance until an environmental threshold has been reached associated with thermal regulation. These commands may also be integrated into host tools to send traditional vendor unique commands in response to a preconfigured time or temperature threshold”) (paragraph [0069] line 2-5) (i.e. vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature associated with thermal regulation and the commands can be sent to vendors with preconfigured time or temperature threshold. In other words, vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Keshava are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Keshava also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Keshava to enable vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava allows a cloud-based computing provider to offer various levels of performance for sale and may also increase overall efficiency within the data systems as fewer resources may go to waste as mentioned in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava improves performance and efficiency. See Keshava, paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 7, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 6. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 6, wherein the setting of the first performance attribution of the first virtual function based on the first requirement level information includes:
providing, by the physical function, a second request for checking an availability of the first requirement level information to the attribution manager;
determining, by the attribution manager, whether the first performance attribution corresponding to the first requirement level information is available, based on the second request;
in response to determining that the first performance attribution is available, storing, by the attribution manager, first attribution information indicating the first performance attribution and providing an available response to the physical function;
setting, by the physical function, the first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the available response; and generating, by the physical function, the done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the setting of the first performance attribution of the first virtual function based on the first requirement level information includes:
providing, by the physical function, a second request for checking an availability of the first requirement level information to the attribution manager;
determining, by the attribution manager, whether the first performance attribution corresponding to the first requirement level information is available, based on the second request; (“virtual machine 1 216 in FIG. 4 is assigned to a tax preparation company that processes tax returns during tax season. Therefore, in the months of January to April, virtual machine 1 216 will have an increased demand for higher performance. Virtual machine 2 217 is utilized by a private company that processes payroll every two weeks. The private company does not utilize the entire available performance of their variable performance storage device 220 consistently. In this situation, the host-computing device hosting the virtual machines 216, 217 can request a higher level of performance for virtual machine 1 216 during the busy months”) (paragraph [0060] line 1-6) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates VM 1 216 and VM 2 217 can request high performance storage bandwidth if it’s available by distributing bandwidth in different months. In other words, VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available)
in response to determining that the first performance attribution is available, storing, by the attribution manager, first attribution information indicating the first performance attribution and providing an available response to the physical function;
setting, by the physical function, the first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the available response; and generating, by the physical function, the done response indicating that the first performance attribution is set. (“Upon receipt of the request, the variable performance storage device 220 can configure the performance of controller 1 350 to a “higher” performance mode utilizing 75 percent of the available performance. In order to not exceed the native limits of the variable performance storage device 220, controller 2 360 associated with virtual machine 2 217 is set to a lower performance level that utilizes 25 percent of the available performance. In this way, the available bandwidth and performance of the variable performance storage device 220 is better utilized by the host-computing device”) (paragraph [0060] line 1-6) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in response to the request, variable performance storage device 220 can configure the performance of controller 1 350 to higher performance mode utilizing 75 percent of the available performance and controller 2 360 associated with VM 2 217 is set to a lower performance level that utilizes 25 percent of the available performance. In other words, in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Keshava are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Keshava also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Keshava to enable VMs to request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava allows a cloud-based computing provider to offer various levels of performance for sale and may also increase overall efficiency within the data systems as fewer resources may go to waste as mentioned in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava improves performance and efficiency. See Keshava, paragraph [0018].
Regarding claim 8, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 6. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 6, wherein the setting of the first performance attribution of the first virtual function based on the first requirement level information includes:
providing, by the physical function, a second request for checking an availability of the first requirement level information to the attribution manager; determining, by the attribution manager, whether the first performance attribution corresponding to the first requirement level information is available, based on the second request;
providing, by the attribution manager, an unavailable response to the physical function, in response to determining that the first performance attribution is unavailable; and providing, by the physical function, the host device with a fail response indicating that the first performance attribution is not set, based on the unavailable response. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach in response to received request variable performance storage device can determine if resource is available to increase performance level and if the requested performance level ius not available host-computing device may alter variable which is considered as fail for that specific performance request.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 6, wherein the setting of the first performance attribution of the first virtual function based on the first requirement level information includes:
providing, by the physical function, a second request for checking an availability of the first requirement level information to the attribution manager; determining, by the attribution manager, whether the first performance attribution corresponding to the first requirement level information is available, based on the second request; (“In response to the received request, the variable performance storage device 220 can determine if resources are available to facilitate the requested increase (block 635). If there are sufficient resources (or headroom) to honor the request, the process 600 can then increase the performance level of at least one controller within the variable performance storage device 220 associated with the virtual machine that was subject of the request (block 650)”) (paragraph [0076] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 6 illustrates in step 635 in response to received request the variable performance storage device 220 can determine if resources are available to facilitate the requested increase and if resource available process 600 can then increase the performance level of storage device 220. In other words, in response to received request variable performance storage device can determine if resource is available to increase performance level)
providing, by the attribution manager, an unavailable response to the physical function, in response to determining that the first performance attribution is unavailable; and providing, by the physical function, the host device with a fail response indicating that the first performance attribution is not set, based on the unavailable response. (“When resources are not available for an increase, the process 600 can create headroom for the requested increase by decreasing the performance level in at least one other controller within the variable performance storage device 220 (block 640)”. This step can operate on various controller's performance control variables to create a more relative delineation between the “higher” performance levels and the “normal” or “lower” levels. Although performance levels may be requested, embodiments of the disclosed invention can also permit the host-computing device to alter each of the control performance variables based on desired applications) (paragraph [0076] line 6-8) (i.e. Fig 6 illustrates in step 640 when resources are not available for an increase performance request as illustrated in step 635, process can also permit host-computing device to alter each of the control performance variables based on desired applications. In other words, if the requested performance level ius not available host-computing device may alter variable which is considered as fail for that specific performance request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Keshava are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Keshava also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in response to received request variable performance storage device can determine if resource is available to increase performance level and if the requested performance level ius not available host-computing device may alter variable which is considered as fail for that specific performance request. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Keshava to enable response to received request variable performance storage device can determine if resource is available to increase performance level and if the requested performance level ius not available host-computing device may alter variable which is considered as fail for that specific performance request. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava allows a cloud-based computing provider to offer various levels of performance for sale and may also increase overall efficiency within the data systems as fewer resources may go to waste as mentioned in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Keshava improves performance and efficiency. See Keshava, paragraph [0018].
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Bektas et al. (US 20170153906 A1) and further in view of IWATA et al. (US 20120036383 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and IWATA.
Regarding claim 11, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 1. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1, further comprising: before receiving the first request, receiving a power voltage from the host device; activating a physical function based on the power voltage; before receiving the first request, receiving a sixth request for generating the first virtual function; and
generating, by the activated physical function, the first virtual function based on the sixth request. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach VMs required information includes power supply voltages among other data. On the other hand, IWATA also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and VMs required information includes power supply voltages among other data.
On the other hand, IWATA which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: before receiving the first request, receiving a power voltage from the host device; activating a physical function based on the power voltage; before receiving the first request, receiving a sixth request for generating the first virtual function; and
generating, by the activated physical function, the first virtual function based on the sixth request. (“FIG. 5, in the power supply data 22a, each schedule is tagged with a schedule ID. In accordance with each schedule ID, an applied time, identifications of power supplies, identifications whether the power supplies are power-on/off, outlet IDs, host IDs, types of power supplies, and input/output power voltages/frequencies are related thereto”) (paragraph [0055] line 2-5) (i.e. Fig 5 illustrates VMs power supply data 22a which contains among other data types of power supplies, input/output voltages. In other words, VMs required information includes power supply voltages among other data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and IWATA are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, IWATA also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and VMs required information that includes power supply voltages among other data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with IWATA to enable VMs required information that includes power supply voltages among other data. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - IWATA allows a method of control of a power supply used in combination with networked first and second hosts with a virtual machine as mentioned in paragraph [0009]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - IWATA improves management of power supplies. See IWATA, paragraph [0007].
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Bektas et al. (US 20170153906 A1) and further in view of Koelewijn et al. (US 20230205550 A1) and further in view of Keshava et al. (US 20210405899 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas, Koelewijn and Keshava.
Regarding claim 18, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 16. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination does not explicitly teach The method of claim 16, wherein the first performance attribution defines at least one of a first data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function, a first maximum power consumption value permitted for the first virtual function, and
the second performance attribution defines at least one of a second data bandwidth allocated to the second virtual function, a second maximum power consumption value permitted for the second virtual function. Also, KIM – Bektas combination does not teach enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user.
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The method of claim 16, wherein the first performance attribution defines at least one of a first data bandwidth allocated to the first virtual function, a first maximum power consumption value permitted for the first virtual function, and
the second performance attribution defines at least one of a second data bandwidth allocated to the second virtual function, a second maximum power consumption value permitted for the second virtual function, (“mediating resource brokering services 151/161 can be situated in the Intranet 150 (as shown for brokering service(s) 151) and/or in the Internet or Cloud 155/160 (as shown for brokering service(s) 161) and can determine how many VM's and/or which portions of the VM's (instantiated inside the Intra-Enterprise servers 130 or in the In-Cloud servers 140) is/are allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under ideal conditions (e.g., data processing bandwidths, memory capacities and read/write bandwidths, communications capacity and send/receive bandwidths”) (paragraph [0025] line 13-18) (i.e. Fig 1E illustrates resource brokering services 151/161 can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under condition of data processing bandwidths, memory capacities. In other words, resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities etc)
(“the illustrated workload scripts 136 and measurements-reporting application 139 as well as measurement definitions 138 that define what types of measurements are to be taken and reported (139a). As indicated by reporting paths 139b, . . . , 139z”) (paragraph [0039] line 16-18) (i.e. Fig 1C illustrates workload scripts 136 and measurements-reporting application 139 as well as measurement definitions 138 define what types of measurements are to be taken and reported by reporting paths 139b, . . . , 139z. In other words, workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting paths)
(“aside from the client-side end users, the enterprise computer system 100 will have further users who act as system administrators. These folk typically determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user who are members of the enterprise organization”) (paragraph [0030] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 1A illustrates enterprise computer system 100 have users who act as system administrators and can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. In other words, enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination with Koelewijn to enable enterprise computer system which has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Bektas and further in view of Koelewijn teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn combination does not explicitly teach a first maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the first virtual function, and a second maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the second virtual function.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches a first maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the first virtual function, and a second maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the second virtual function. (“It is contemplated that further vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature which can, for example, reduce performance until an environmental threshold has been reached associated with thermal regulation. These commands may also be integrated into host tools to send traditional vendor unique commands in response to a preconfigured time or temperature threshold”) (paragraph [0069] line 2-5) (i.e. vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature associated with thermal regulation and the commands can be sent to vendors with preconfigured time or temperature threshold. In other words, vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Bektas for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Bektas, Koelewijn and Keshava are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Keshava also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewijn combination with Keshava to enable vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation. The combined system of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas – Koelewij - Keshava allows a cloud-based computing provider to offer various levels of performance for sale and may also increase overall efficiency within the data systems as fewer resources may go to waste as mentioned in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih - Banerjee – Bektas - Koelewij - Keshava improves performance and efficiency. See Keshava, paragraph [0018].
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Keshava et al. (US 20210405899 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee and Keshava.
Regarding claim 19, KIM teaches A storage device comprising: a non-volatile memory device; a function manager including a physical function configured to communicate with a host device executing a virtual machine and a virtual function corresponding to the virtual machine; and (“plurality of hosts 11 to 1n configured to access the storage device 100 independently of each other may require a specific performance (e.g., a specific number (e.g., quantity) of commands processed per unit time and/or a specific size of inputs/outputs processed per unit time with regard to the given host based on processing one or more commands from the given host device through the corresponding physical function PF) depending on a type or an operation manner for the purpose of accessing the storage device 100”) (paragraph [0031] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates hosts 11-1n configured to access storage device 100 independently requiring specific performance through the corresponding physical function PF)
an attribution manager configured to manage a resource to be provided from the non- volatile memory device to the virtual function, (“the storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may include a performance manager 111, also referred to herein interchangeably as performance manager circuitry. The performance manager 111 may be configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n and may schedule commands respectively corresponding to the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n”) (paragraph [0032] line 2-6) (i.e. Fig 1 illustrates storage controller 110 of the storage device 100 may include a performance manager 111 which maybe configured to set a level of performance of each of the plurality of hosts 11 to 1n for various virtual functions)
KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM does not explicitly teach setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device
On the other hand, Shih which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches setting a first performance attribution of the first virtual function, based on the first requirement level information; and the first
performance attribution defines a physical path connected to memory chips
exclusively allocated to the first virtual function from among a plurality of
memory chips in the storage device (see Fig 7 and 8, paragraph [0078], illustrates in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command)
Both KIM and Shih relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM teaches storage device performance attribution setting according to host requirement. On the other hand, Shih also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and in order to meet the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM with Shih to enable meeting the requirement like given latency performance hypervisor may select a qualified exclusive device path to handle I/O command. The combined system of KIM - Shih allows administrators to deploy various applications using virtual machine (VM) templates for creating virtual machines as mentioned in paragraph [0003]. Therefore, the combination of KIM - Shih improves latency performance. See Shih, paragraph [0058].
KIM in view of Shih teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih combination does not explicitly teach from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function
On the other hand, Banerjee which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches from physical paths within the storage device based on mapping relationships between physical paths and the first virtual function (see Fig 2, paragraph [0035] and [0036], illustrates virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM with Shih for the reasons set forth above. In
addition, KIM, Shih and Banerjee are considered analogous arts, because they all
relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Banerjee also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee to specify storage device performance attribution setting and virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee allows the processing devices on the storage array system to share access, in parallel, with connected host devices while executing instances of an operating system designed for a uniprocessor environment as mentioned in paragraph [0005]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee improves performance. See Banerjee, paragraph [0014]
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination does not explicitly teach the physical function is configured to: receive a request indicating a setting operation of the virtual function and including requirement level information of the virtual machine from the host device;
determine whether a performance attribution corresponding to the requirement level information is available, with reference to the attribution manager;
set the performance attribution of the virtual function, in response to determining that the performance attribution is available; and
provide the host device with a done response indicating that the performance attribution is set. Also, KIM does not teach VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches the physical function is configured to: receive a request indicating a setting operation of the virtual function and including requirement level information of the virtual machine from the host device;
determine whether a performance attribution corresponding to the requirement level information is available, with reference to the attribution manager; (“virtual machine 1 216 in FIG. 4 is assigned to a tax preparation company that processes tax returns during tax season. Therefore, in the months of January to April, virtual machine 1 216 will have an increased demand for higher performance. Virtual machine 2 217 is utilized by a private company that processes payroll every two weeks. The private company does not utilize the entire available performance of their variable performance storage device 220 consistently. In this situation, the host-computing device hosting the virtual machines 216, 217 can request a higher level of performance for virtual machine 1 216 during the busy months”) (paragraph [0060] line 1-6) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates VM 1 216 and VM 2 217 can request high performance storage bandwidth if it’s available by distributing bandwidth in different months. In other words, VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available)
set the performance attribution of the virtual function, in response to determining that the performance attribution is available; and
provide the host device with a done response indicating that the performance attribution is set. (“Upon receipt of the request, the variable performance storage device 220 can configure the performance of controller 1 350 to a “higher” performance mode utilizing 75 percent of the available performance. In order to not exceed the native limits of the variable performance storage device 220, controller 2 360 associated with virtual machine 2 217 is set to a lower performance level that utilizes 25 percent of the available performance. In this way, the available bandwidth and performance of the variable performance storage device 220 is better utilized by the host-computing device”) (paragraph [0060] line 1-6) (i.e. Fig 4 illustrates in response to the request, variable performance storage device 220 can configure the performance of controller 1 350 to higher performance mode utilizing 75 percent of the available performance and controller 2 360 associated with VM 2 217 is set to a lower performance level that utilizes 25 percent of the available performance. In other words, in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM – Shih combination with Banerjee for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee and Keshava are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Keshava also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and VMs can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih - Banerjee combination with Keshava to enable VMs that can request high performance storage bandwidth from each other if they are available and in response to the request variable performance storage device sets available performance storage among the controllers based on availability and priority. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Keshava allows a cloud-based computing provider to offer various levels of performance for sale and may also increase overall efficiency within the data systems as fewer resources may go to waste as mentioned in paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Keshava improves performance and efficiency. See Keshava, paragraph [0018].
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20210255971 A1) in view of Shih et al. (US 20150339143 A1) and further in view of Banerjee et al. (US 20170031699 A1) and further in view of Keshava et al. (US 20210405899 A1) and further in view of Koelewijn et al. (US 20230205550 A1) and further in view of Koelewijn et al. (US 20230205550 A1) hereinafter KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Koelewijn and Keshava.
Regarding claim 20, KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Keshava teaches storage device performance attribution setting of claim 19. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee - Keshava combination does not explicitly teach The storage device of claim 19, wherein the performance attribution defines at least one of: a data bandwidth allocated to the virtual function;
a maximum power consumption value permitted for the virtual function; and
On the other hand, Koelewijn which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches The storage device of claim 19, wherein the performance attribution defines at least one of: a data bandwidth allocated to the virtual function; (“mediating resource brokering services 151/161 can be situated in the Intranet 150 (as shown for brokering service(s) 151) and/or in the Internet or Cloud 155/160 (as shown for brokering service(s) 161) and can determine how many VM's and/or which portions of the VM's (instantiated inside the Intra-Enterprise servers 130 or in the In-Cloud servers 140) is/are allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under ideal conditions (e.g., data processing bandwidths, memory capacities and read/write bandwidths, communications capacity and send/receive bandwidths”) (paragraph [0025] line 13-18) (i.e. Fig 1E illustrates resource brokering services 151/161 can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing each end user's workloads and what the various performance attributes of those VM's will be under condition of data processing bandwidths, memory capacities. In other words, resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths, capacities etc)
a maximum power consumption value permitted for the virtual function; and (“aside from the client-side end users, the enterprise computer system 100 will have further users who act as system administrators. These folk typically determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user who are members of the enterprise organization”) (paragraph [0030] line 1-4) (i.e. Fig 1A illustrates enterprise computer system 100 have users who act as system administrators and can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. In other words, enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Applicant’s filing to combine KIM - Shih - Banerjee combination with Keshava for the reasons set forth above. In addition, KIM, Shih, Banerjee, Keshava and Koelewijn are considered analogous arts, because they all relate to the same field of endeavor, i.e., storage device performance attribution setting. KIM – Shih - Banerjee - Keshava combination teaches storage device performance attribution setting with different requirements from hosts. On the other hand, Koelewijn also teaches storage device performance attribution setting and resource brokering services can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths and workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting paths and enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine KIM – Shih - Banerjee – Keshava combination with Koelewijn to enable resource brokering services which can determine how VMs will be allocated for servicing end users workloads based on performance attributes of data bandwidths and workload script, measurement application and definition define types of measurements and reporting paths and enterprise computer system has system administrators who can determine the amount and power of the remote resources available to the individual end user. The combined system of KIM – Shih - Banerjee – Keshava - Koelewijn allows the enterprise computer system to have, on a more than temporary-for-evaluation basis, the configuration that was determined to provide the better end user experience as mentioned in paragraph [0008]. Therefore, the combination of KIM – Shih - Banerjee – Keshava - Koelewijn improves user experience. See Koelewijn, paragraph [0009].
KIM in view of Shih and further in view of Banerjee and further in view of Keshava and further in view of Koelewijn teaches storage device performance attribution setting. However, KIM - Shih - Banerjee - Keshava - Koelewijn combination does not explicitly teach a maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the virtual function.
On the other hand, Keshava which also relates to storage device performance attribution setting teaches a maximum heat generation temperature value permitted for the virtual function. (“It is contemplated that further vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature which can, for example, reduce performance until an environmental threshold has been reached associated with thermal regulation. These commands may also be integrated into host tools to send traditional vendor unique commands in response to a preconfigured time or temperature threshold”) (paragraph [0069] line 2-5) (i.e. vendor unique commands can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature associated with thermal regulation and the commands can be sent to vendors with preconfigured time or temperature threshold. In other words, vendor unique commands for performance attribution can be associated with input environmental variables such as temperature threshold associated with thermal regulation)
The same motivation that was utilized for combining KIM - Shih - Banerjee - Keshava combination with Koelewijn as set forth above is equally applicable here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/07/2025 have been fully considered but they
are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is claims 1,16 and 19 amendments mapping by
secondary reference Shih in page 12 of the response:
For example, Shih discloses "the hypervisor selecting a qualified device path [through a series of devices] to handle the I/O command to meet the requirement of the I/O hint" in [0078]. However, Shih further discloses using prioritized I/O queues to shift orders of I/O commands. Further, Shih generally refers to paths as a routing through busses, switches, and storage arrays and is silent as to mapping relationships and physical paths connected to memory chips within a device.
As such, Shih uses device paths for a plurality of I/O commands and functions, and cannot disclose or suggest the physical path, let alone the defining of the physical path as required by amended claim 1.
In sum, without conceding as to any of the Examiner's assertions that are not specifically addressed herein, Applicants note that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest claim 1
In summary, applicant argued that secondary reference Shih do not teach amended limitations of mapping relationships between physical path and virtual function. The amendment necessitates adding secondary reference Banerjee in this regard. For further clarification examiner cites portion from Banerjee. Also, for applicant’s understanding examiner would like to explain the teachings of Banerjee and examiner’s interpretation in more detail here. See Fig 2, paragraph [0035] and [0036], Banerjee teaches virtual function sorting/routing layer 216 can map virtual base address registers 214a-d of each virtual function 212a-d to physical registers and memory blocks where virtual base address registers 214a point to the correct locations in memory space of the storage devices 128a-b or to IO path as mapped by virtual function routing layer 216. The cited portion along with figures clearly teaches mapping relationship between physical register which points to actual locations in memory and virtual function. Thus, the rejection of amended claims 1,16 and 19 is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBIR K CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (703)756-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 CST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)-272-3978. 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.
/S.K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132