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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is a copy of the originally filed claims of the parent application 18/094,398 and are not describing the claimed inventive concept being presented in the present application nor do they meet the criteria for the form and language of the abstract outlined in MPEP 608.01(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 11-13, 20-22, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rostoker et al. (US PGPub 2016/0011790, hereafter referred to as Rostoker).
Regarding claim 1, Rostoker teaches a storage device comprising: a memory device; and a memory controller (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0016]-[0017], show the storage device that contains a controller and memory), configured to receive, from an external host, a command including information on a specific position in the external host and requesting access to the memory device (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0054]-[0057], describes the communications between the host and storage device which includes the host sending a command to the storage device that will request reading of data and include a logical address that can correspond to the location in the unified memory area (which is on the host device)), and input or output data for the specific position based on the information (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0054]-[0057], in response to the commands from the host the storage device will either output data or input data into memory).
Regarding claim 11, Rostoker teaches a host device comprising: a host memory; and a host controller (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0015], shows the host device which contains a controller and memory), configured to control the host memory and provide a command to an external storage device (Fig. 1 and 2 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0047], shows the external storage device and the communications that can take place between the two. The purpose of the host controller is also to control the components of the host including the memory), wherein the host memory includes a unified memory area directly accessible by the storage device, and the unified memory area includes a shared area shared by the host controller and the storage device (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0013] and [0015], shows the unified memory area in the host that is also shared by the host and storage device and is directly accessible by the storage device. It should be noted that the claims do not specify how much of the unified memory area the shared area takes up).
Regarding claim 12, Rostoker teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Rostoker further teaches wherein the shared area is an area accessible by both of the host controller and the storage device (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the unified memory area/shared area is accessible by both the host and the storage device).
Regarding claim 13, Rostoker teaches all the limitations of claim 11. Rostoker further teaches wherein the host controller determines whether an empty area exists in the shared area (Paragraph [0052], states the storage device will determine a free space (empty) in the unified memory area to store data to and then send that information to the host. It should be noted the claims do not specify how the host controller determines that there is an empty area).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the system claim associated with claims 1 and 11. Since Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claims 1 and 11, it also teaches all the limitations to claim 20; therefore the rejections to claims 1 and 11 also apply to claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 20. Rostoker further teaches wherein the host device stores data, which is to be stored in the memory device, in the shared area (Paragraphs [0015] and [0019], states that data can be stored in the unified memory area and then sent to the memory device).
Regarding claim 22, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 20. Rostoker further teaches wherein the host provides a write command to the storage device (Fig. 2 and Paragraph [0048], states the host can send a write command to the storage device).
Regarding claim 27, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 20. Rostoker further teaches wherein the host device provides a read command to the storage device (Paragraph [0054], states the host can send a read command to the storage device).
Regarding claim 30, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 20. Rostoker further teaches wherein the host device determines whether an area where data may be stored exists in the shared area (Paragraph [0052], Paragraph [0052], states the storage device will determine a free space (area in which data can be stored) in the unified memory area to store data to and then send that information to the host. It should be noted the claims do not specify how the host controller determines that there is an empty area).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 14-16, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostoker in view of Yoshimizu et al. (US PGPub 2021/0149568, hereafter referred to as Yoshimizu).
Regarding claim 2, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Rostoker does not teach wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the memory device.
Yoshimizu teaches wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the memory device (Paragraph [0097], states a write command can be sent to the memory that includes location information specifying where the data to be written is located on the host). Since both Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach sending write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art references according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to have write commands also include information regarding where the data is stored on the host as taught in Yoshimizu to obtain the predictable result of wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the memory device (as all this does is make write commands include the specified location data but does not change how the write commands operate or are executed).
Regarding claim 3, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 2. Yoshimizu further teaches wherein the specific position is a position in the external host where data, which is to be stored in the memory device, is stored (Paragraph [0097], as stated in the rejection to claim 2, the location information specifies where in the host the data to be written is stored). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 3. Yoshimizu further teaches wherein the memory controller stores data stored in the specific position in the memory device in response to the write command (Paragraph [0097], the entire purpose of the write command is to command the storage device to write the data to the memory). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 11. Rostoker does not teach wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the storage device.
Yoshimizu teaches wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the memory device (Paragraph [0097], states a write command can be sent to the memory that includes location information specifying where the data to be written is located on the host). Since both Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach sending write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art references according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to have write commands also include information regarding where the data is stored on the host as taught in Yoshimizu to obtain the predictable result of wherein the command is a write command requesting to store data in the storage device (as all this does is make write commands include the specified location data but does not change how the write commands operate or are executed).
Regarding claim 15, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 14. Yoshimizu further teaches wherein when the host controller determines that the empty area exists, the host controller stores data, which is to be stored in the storage device, in the empty area (Paragraph [0097], while it is not explicitly stated that the host controller determines an empty area, as the data is stored in the host memory it means that a determination of where it store it (empty space is available) would need to be made). Rostoker further teaches a shared area (Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 11). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 15. Yoshimizu further teaches wherein the write command includes information on a position where the data is stored (Paragraph [0097], as stated in the rejection to claim 14). Rostoker further teaches a shared area (Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 11). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 14.
Regarding claim 23, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 22. Rostoker does not teach wherein the write command includes information on a position in the shared area of the data.
Yoshimizu teaches wherein the write command includes information on a position in the host area of the data (Paragraph [0097], states a write command can be sent to the memory that includes location information specifying where the data to be written is located on the host). Since both Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach sending write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art references according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to have write commands also include information regarding where the data is stored on the host as taught in Yoshimizu to obtain the predictable result of wherein the write command includes information on a position in the shared area of the data (as all this does is make write commands include the specified location data but does not change how the write commands operate or are executed).
Regarding claim 24, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 15. Yoshimizu further teaches wherein the memory controller stores the data in the host area in the memory device based on the information (Paragraph [0097], as stated in the rejection to claim 23). Rostoker further teaches a shared area (Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 11). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 23.
Claims 5, 6, 17, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostoker and Yoshimizu as applied to claims 4, 16, and 24 above, and further in view of Bordia et al. (US PGPub 2020/0012595, hereafter referred to as Bordia).
Regarding claim 5, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 4. Rostoker and Yoshimizu do not teach wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the external host.
Bordia teaches wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the external host (Paragraphs [0107] and [0126], states that after data is written to a storage device from a host a notification/response can be sent back that will trigger an erase operation on where the data was stored in the host). Since both Rostoker/Yoshimizu and Bordia teach issuing write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker and Yoshimizu to also send a response to the host upon completing a write operation as taught in Bordia to obtain the predictable result of wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the external host (as all this is doing is requiring a response to be sent after a write is completed and does not affect the rest of the processes).
Regarding claim 6, Rostoker, Yoshimizu, and Bordia teach all the limitations to claim 5. Bordia further teaches wherein the response includes information requesting erasure of data stored in the specific position (Paragraphs [0107] and [0126], as stated in the rejection to claim 5, in response to the notification that the write is complete an erase operation of the location that the data was stored can be executed meaning that the response does include information requesting the erase (it should be noted the claims do not specify what the information is)). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 16. Rostoker and Yoshimizu do not teach wherein the host controller erases the data from the shared area when receiving a response indicating that storage of the data is completed from the storage device.
Bordia teaches wherein the host controller erases the data from the area when receiving a response indicating that storage of the data is completed from the storage device (Paragraphs [0107] and [0126], states that after data is written to a storage device from a host a notification/response can be sent back that will trigger an erase operation on where the data was stored in the host). Since both Rostoker/Yoshimizu and Bordia teach issuing write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker and Yoshimizu to also send a response to the host upon completing a write operation as taught in Bordia to obtain the predictable result of wherein the host controller erases the data from the shared area when receiving a response indicating that storage of the data is completed from the storage device (as all this is doing is requiring a response to be sent after a write is completed and does not affect the rest of the processes).
Regarding claim 25, Rostoker and Yoshimizu teach all the limitations to claim 24. Rostoker and Yoshimizu do not teach wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the host device.
Bordia teaches wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the host device(Paragraphs [0107] and [0126], states that after data is written to a storage device from a host a notification/response can be sent back that will trigger an erase operation on where the data was stored in the host). Since both Rostoker/Yoshimizu and Bordia teach issuing write commands it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker and Yoshimizu to also send a response to the host upon completing a write operation as taught in Bordia to obtain the predictable result of wherein the memory controller stores the data in the memory device and then provides a response to the host device.
Regarding claim 26, Rostoker, Yoshimizu, and Bordia teach all the limitations to claim 25. Bordia further teaches wherein the host device erases the data in the shared area according to the response (Paragraphs [0107] and [0126], as stated in the rejection to claim 25, in response to the notification that the write is complete an erase operation of the location that the data was stored can be executed meaning that the response does include information requesting the erase (it should be noted the claims do not specify what the information is)). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 25.
Claims 7-10, 18, 19, 28, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rostoker in view of Vishne et al. (US PGPub 2021/0342096, hereafter referred to as Vishne).
Regarding claim 7, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Rostoker does not teach wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data from the memory device.
Vishne teaches wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data from the memory device (Paragraph [0050], states a read request can be sent that includes a location in the host that the read data is to be stored). Since both Rostoker and Vishne teach sending commands with data regarding a location in the host memory it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to also have a read command include information regarding a location in the host memory as taught in Vishne to obtain the predictable result of wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data from the memory device (as all this does is specify that the read command itself will also include specific information regarding the location in the host memory).
Regarding claim 8, Rostoker and Vishne teach all the limitations to claim 7. Vishne further teaches wherein the specific position is a position in the external host where data read from the memory device is stored (Paragraph [0050], as stated in the rejection to claim 6, the location information specifies a location in the host memory). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Rostoker and Vishne teach all the limitations to claim 8. Vishne further teaches wherein the memory controller reads data from the memory device in response to the read command and stores the read data in the specific position (Paragraph [0050], the entire purpose of a read command is to read data from the memory to the host). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 1. Rostoker does not teach wherein the information on the specific position is information on an address in a host memory included in the external host.
Vishne teaches wherein the information on the specific position is information on an address in a host memory included in the external host (Paragraph [0050], states a read request can be sent that includes a specific location in the host that the read data is to be stored). Since both Rostoker and Vishne teach sending commands with data regarding a location in the host memory it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to also have a read command include information regarding a location in the host memory as taught in Vishne to obtain the predictable result of wherein the information on the specific position is information on an address in a host memory included in the external host (as all this does is specify that the read command itself will also include specific information regarding the location in the host memory).
Regarding claim 18, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 13. Rostoker does not teach wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data to the storage device.
Vishne teaches wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data to the storage device (Paragraph [0050], states a read request can be sent that includes a specific location in the host that the read data is to be stored). Since both Rostoker and Vishne teach sending commands with data regarding a location in the host memory it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to also have a read command include information regarding a location in the host memory as taught in Vishne to obtain the predictable result of wherein the command is a read command requesting to read data to the storage device (as all this does is specify that the read command itself will also include specific information regarding the location in the host memory).
Regarding claim 19, Rostoker and Vishne teach all the limitations to claim 18. Vishne further teaches wherein when the host controller determines that an empty area exists in the area, the read command includes information on a position in the empty area where data received from the storage device is to be stored (Paragraph [0050], the host can determine a space to allocate to the memory (free/empty area) that it can use has a host memory buffer. That space can then be specified in the read command to the storage device). Rostoker further teaches a shared area (Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 11). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 27. Rostoker does not teach wherein the read command includes information on a position in the shared area where read data is to be stored.
Vishne teaches wherein the read command includes information on a position in the host area where read data is to be stored. (Paragraph [0050], states a read request can be sent that includes a specific location in the host that the read data is to be stored). Since both Rostoker and Vishne teach sending commands with data regarding a location in the host memory it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to also have a read command include information regarding a location in the host memory as taught in Vishne to obtain the predictable result of wherein the read command includes information on a position in the shared area where read data is to be stored (as all this does is specify that the read command itself will also include specific information regarding the location in the host memory).
Regarding claim 29, Rostoker and Vishne teach all the limitations to claim 28. Vishne further teaches wherein the memory controller reads data from the memory device in response to the read command and stores the read data in the host area based on the information (Paragraph [0050], the host can determine a space to allocate to the memory (free/empty area) that it can use has a host memory buffer. That space can then be specified in the read command to the storage device). Rostoker further teaches a shared area (Paragraph [0015], as stated in the rejection to claim 11). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 28.
Regarding claim 31, Rostoker teaches all the limitations to claim 30. Rostoker does not teach wherein when the host device determines that the area where data may be stored exists in the shared area, the host device provides a command including information on the area where the data may be stored to the storage device.
Vishne teaches wherein when the host device determines that the area where data may be stored exists in the host area, the host device provides a command including information on the area where the data may be stored to the storage device (Paragraph [0050], the host can determine a space to allocate to the memory (exists to store data) that it can use has a host memory buffer. That space can then be specified in the read command to the storage device). Since both Rostoker and Vishne teach sending commands with data regarding a location in the host memory it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Rostoker to also have a read command include information regarding a location in the host memory as taught in Vishne to obtain the predictable result of wherein when the host device determines that the area where data may be stored exists in the shared area, the host device provides a command including information on the area where the data may be stored to the storage device (as all this does is specify that the read command itself will also include specific information regarding the location in the host memory).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST.
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.
/NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights