DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,343. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention simply claims a broader scope from the ’343 patent.
‘789 Application
‘343 Patent
(Claim 1) a solid state drive comprising:
(Claim 1) a storage device comprising:
a storage for data;
a controller to process an input/output request from a host processor on the data in the storage;
a controller to process an input/output request from a host processor on the data in the storage;
a computational storage unit to implement service for execution on the data in the storage; and
a computational storage unit to implement service for execution on the data in the storage; and
a command router
to route a first command received from the host processor to the controller based on the first command being a data access command, and
to route a second command received from the host processor to the computational storage unit based on the second command being a data processing command to process the data.
a command router
to route a first storage protocol command received from the host processor to the controller, and
to route a second storage protocol command received from the host processor to the computational storage unit based on a feature identifier on the second storage protocol command.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 17 are substantially identical to the independent claims 1-3 with a broader scope from, for example, “command” is not a “storage protocol command” type. As such, independent 1, 11 and 17 remain broader scope from the dependent claims of the ‘343 patent for obviousness double patenting.
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have scopes found in corresponding claims in the ‘343 patent, they are rejected for the same reason as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kerr (US 2022/0,300,165).
Referring to claims 1, 11 and 17, Yang discloses a solid state drive SSD (fig. 1, data storage drive 101; para.0017, SSD), comprising:
a storage (fig. 1, NAND 130) for a data (para.0003, data);
a controller (para.0026, NVMe controller; fig. 1, host interface 106 includes NVMe controller) to process an input/output IO request (para.0026, NVMe controller receives read/write/erase/operational commands) from a host processor (fig. 1, host computing device 150) on the data in the storage;
a computational storage unit (fig. 1, processor 125, flash translation layer FTL 104) to implement service (para.0003, FTL allows communications and data transmissions across memory arrays) for execution (para.0031, perform command from host computing device 150 in the storage drive 101, block management of NAND flash memory 130) on the data in the storage; and
a command router (fig. 1, host interface 106, peripheral interface 102)
to route a first command (para.0026, read/write commands) received from the host processor to the controller (para.0026, NVMe controller) being a data access command (para. 0026, read/write commands), and
to route a second command (para.0031, FTL received commands) received from the host processor to the computational storage unit based on the second command being a data processing command (para.0031, perform command from host computing device 150 in the storage drive 101, block management of NAND flash memory 130) to process the data.
As to claim 2, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein the command is a Non-Volatile Memory Express NVNe command (para.0026, NVMe).
As to claim 3, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein:
the command uses a first protocol (fig. 1, protocol 180);
the second command (para.0031, FTL 104 receives command from host computing device 150) uses the protocol; and
the command router is
to route the first command received from the host processor to the controller based on the first command (para.0026, read/write commands), and
to route the second command received from the host processor to the computational storage unit based on the second command (para.0031, FTL received commands).
As to claims 4, 12 and 18, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein the controller is separate (fig. 1, FTL 104 separated from host interface 106) from the command router.
As to claims 8 and 14, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein the second command includes two services (para.0031, FTL data management, NAND block management) of the computational storage unit.
As to claims 9, 15 and 20, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein:
the command router includes a list of data access commands (para.0026, write/read/move/erase commands) to be routed to the controller, and
the command router to select the controller as a destination for the data access command based on a comparison of the data access command and the list of data access commands (para.0026, accepted write/read/move/erase commands).
As to claims 10 and 16, Kerr discloses the SSD of claim 1, wherein:
the command router includes a list of data processing commands (para.0031, data management and block management of NAND flash memory 130) to be routed to the computational storage unit; and
the command router to select the computational storage unit as a destination for the data processing command based on a comparison of the data processing command and the list of data processing commands (para.0031, accepted management commands).
[Note: examiner suggests applicant combine limitations from claims 9 and 10 for clarifying scope of a comparison to a list of commands].
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
“a controller is included in a command router” (claims 5, 15 and 19) and
“a controller is separate from a command router” (claims 4, 14 and 18).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claim 1 is generic. Claims 5, 13 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reasons apply: The species or groupings of patently indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire in THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136 (a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights