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 .
Status
This instant application No. 18/761695 has
Claims 6 and 14 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are added.
The total of claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 are pending. The effective filing date of this application is 07/02/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” each coupled with functional language “determining, comparing, initiating” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “the scheduling system is packed functional hardware unit”, in paragraph [0072], to perform functional language “determining, comparing, initiating” as cited in claim 16.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh.
Regarding claim 1, Horspool discloses A method, comprising:
identifying one or more write commands that are to be executed on a currently operating metablock of a data storage device (Horspool: [0040]: “The controller 120 (e.g., the frontend) can monitor and log data sizes associated with the write commands for each superblock in response to receiving the commands”);
determining a size associated with each of the one or more write commands (Horspool: [0040]: “The controller 120 (e.g., the frontend) can monitor and log data sizes associated with the write commands”);
determining, based at least in part, on an amount of data stored in the currently operating memory block and on capacity information associated with the currently operating memory block, an amount of available space in the currently operating metablock (Horspool: [0015]: “A total size or capacity of the superblock typically may include the declared capacity”; [0046]: “the controller 120 determines whether the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data. In some examples, determining that the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity includes determining that a remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock is less than a size of the write data”; examiner note: determining whether the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity basing on the remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock discloses the amount of remainder available space in the current operating block after an amount of data stored in the superblock);
comparing the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock with a sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands to determine whether the sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands is greater than the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock (Horspool: [0006]: “The write command indicates that the write data is to be written to a first superblock of the storage device. The storage device determines the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data”; [0046]: “the controller 120 determines whether the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data. In some examples, determining that the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity includes determining that a remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock is less than a size of the write data”; [0007]: “In response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity to store the write data, the storage device programs the write data to at least one of a reserved capacity of the first superblock or a second superblock”); and
Horspool does not explicitly disclose an erase operation on a target block, wherein the erase operation is initiated prior to the currently operating metablock reaching capacity.
However Schuh discloses
based, at least in part, on determining the sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands is greater than the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock, initiating an erase operation on a target metablock prior to the currently operating metablock reaching capacity (Schuh: Fig.3: step 353 to step 354; [0052]: “An additional superblock of the first group can be erased prior to completion of writing to a prior superblock. The second superblock can be ordered as written to subsequent to the prior superblock. The additional superblock can be erased concurrently with the writing of the data to the prior superblock of the first group”).
Examiner note: Horspool discloses writing data to a superblock. When the write data has a total size exceed the remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock, the write data can be written to a second superblock. Schuh discloses a second superblock can be ordered to write data to subsequent to the prior superblock. This second superblock can be erased prior to completion of writing data to the prior superblock. Therefore, the combination of Horspool and Schuh disclose all limitations as recited in claim.
Disclosures by Horspool and Schuh are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool to include concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock disclosed by Schuh. The motivation for concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock by paragraph [0058] of Schuh is for continuing writing data to an additional superblock without waiting for erasing.
Regarding claim 16, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 1, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 9, Horspool discloses A data storage device, comprising:
a controller (Horspool: Fig. 1: ‘Controller 120’); and
a scheduling system associated with the controller (Horspool: Superblock Manager 130) and operable to:
analyze one or more commands in a queue (Horspool: [0040]: “the controller 120 (e.g., a frontend of the controller 120 or an NVMe controller) accumulates all write commands received over a period of time”; [0040]: “[0047]: “monitoring every write command from every submission queue and count every write command that is mapped to each open superblock”);
identify which of the one or more commands in the command queue are write commands (Horspool: [0040]: “The controller 120 (e.g., the frontend) can monitor and log data sizes associated with the write commands for each superblock in response to receiving the commands”);
determine a sum of a size of the write commands in the command queue (Horspool: [0040]: “The controller 120 (e.g., the frontend) can monitor and log data sizes associated with the write commands”; [0047]: “monitoring every write command from every submission queue and count every write command that is mapped to each open superblock”);
compare an amount of available space in a currently operating metablock with the sum of the size of the write commands in the command queue to determine whether the sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands exceeds the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock (Horspool: [0006]: “The write command indicates that the write data is to be written to a first superblock of the storage device. The storage device determines the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data”; [0046]: “the controller 120 determines whether the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data. In some examples, determining that the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity includes determining that a remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock is less than a size of the write data”; [0007]: “In response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity to store the write data, the storage device programs the write data to at least one of a reserved capacity of the first superblock or a second superblock”); and
Horspool does not explicitly disclose an erase operation on a target block, wherein the erase operation is initiated prior to the currently operating metablock reaching capacity.
However Schuh discloses
initiating an erase operation on a target metablock based, at least in part, on a determining that the sum of the size of the write commands in the command queue exceeds the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock, wherein the erase operation is initiated prior to the currently operating metablock reaching capacity (Schuh: Fig.3: step 353 to step 354; [0052]: “An additional superblock of the first group can be erased prior to completion of writing to a prior superblock. The second superblock can be ordered as written to subsequent to the prior superblock. The additional superblock can be erased concurrently with the writing of the data to the prior superblock of the first group”).
Examiner note: Horspool discloses writing data to a superblock. When the write data has a total size exceed the remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock, the write data can be written to a second superblock. Schuh discloses a second superblock can be ordered to write data to subsequent to the prior superblock. This second superblock can be erased prior to completion of writing data to the prior superblock. Therefore, the combination of Horspool and Schuh disclose all limitations as recited in claim.
Disclosures by Horspool and Schuh are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool to include concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock disclosed by Schuh. The motivation for concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock by paragraph [0058] of Schuh is for continuing writing data to an additional superblock without waiting for erasing.
Regarding claim 2, Horspool combined further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising writing data associated with the one or more write commands to the target metablock when the currently operating metablock reaches capacity (Horspool: [0046]: “the controller 120 determines whether the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data. In some examples, determining that the first superblock lacks sufficient capacity includes determining that a remainder of the declared capacity of the first superblock is less than a size of the write data”; Fig. 4: step 440 to step 460; [0051]: “in response to determining that the reserved capacity of the first superblock is not available (440:NO), the controller 120 programs the write data, now deemed to be overflow data, to a second superblock”).
Regarding claim 10, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 2, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 5, Horspool combined further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the target metablock is a destination metablock associated with a relocation operation of a garbage collection process (Horspool: [0003]: “Reclaiming a superblock for reuse involves garbage collecting the contents in the superblock and erasing the whole superblock”).
Regarding claim 18, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 5, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 7, Schuh combined further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the erase operation is executed in parallel with a write operation that is executed on the currently operating metablock (Schuh: The additional superblock can be erased concurrently with the writing of the data to the prior superblock of the first group”).
Disclosures by Horspool and Schuh are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool to include concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock disclosed by Schuh. The motivation for concurrently erasing operation performed to an additional superblock while writing data to a prior superblock by paragraph [0058] of Schuh is for continuing writing data to an additional superblock without waiting for erasing.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 7, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 12, Horspool combined further discloses The data storage device of claim 9, wherein the one or more commands are associated with a relocation operation of a garbage collection process (Horspool: [0043]: “the overflow data is written to another superblock. For example, any overflow data from a superblock can be written to the superblock 300d. The superblock 300d may be a dedicated superblock for overflow data, and may store overflow data from multiple superblocks (e.g., superblocks 300a, 300b, and 300c). Although garbage collection may be performed frequently on the superblock 300d”).
Claims 3, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively above, and further in view of Das (2024/0329879).
Regarding claim 3, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the limitations of claim 3.
However, Das discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the currently operating metablock is associated with a first set of memory dies and the target metablock is associated with a second set of memory dies that are different than the first set of memory dies (Das: [0155]: “As new commands continuously arrive for each open superblock in a QoS domain, the die group segregator 2330 can segregate them based on the die group ID 2340 using the static mapping between superblock ID and die group ID”); [0190]: “Once the write commands belonging to different open superblocks have been segregated based on die group IDs, the segregated superblock IDs are then sent to individual superblock full WLSTR identifiers 3430. The superblock full WLSTR identifiers 3430 can determine the completion status of word line strings within each superblock. By monitoring and identifying the completion status of WLSTRs, the superblock full WLSTR identifiers 3430 provides that write commands are allocated to superblocks with available space for programming”).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and Das are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include maintaining tenant isolation between write commands belonging to different open superblocks disclosed by Das. The motivation for maintaining tenant isolation between write commands belonging to different open superblocks by paragraph [0064] of Das is for maintaining maximum write performance through optimal utilization and parallelization of NAND die bandwidth.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 3, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Um (9697903).
Regarding claim 4, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the limitations of claim 4.
However, Um discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the erase operation is a stepwise erase operation (Um: column 6, lines 38-41: “As shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, in order to reduce the time required for an erase operation and make threshold voltage distributions denser, memory cells may be erased using a stepwise erase method”).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and Um are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include using a stepwise erase method disclosed by Um. The motivation for using a stepwise erase method by column 6, lines 38-41 of Um is for reducing the time required for an erase operation.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively above, and further in view of Lu et al (9823863) hereinafter Lu.
Regarding claim 8, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the limitations of claim 8.
However, Lu discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the currently operating metablock is comprised of one or more sub-blocks of a physical memory block (Lu: column 4, lines 32-33: “Super-block 200 is divided up into 128 sub-blocks”).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and Lu are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include dividing each superblock into subblock disclosed by Lu. The motivation for dividing each superblock into subblock by column 3, line 63 – column 4, line 6 of Lu is for reducing the time during a rebuild in which only the subblock that stored metadata is scanned.
Regarding claim 20, these claims limitations are significantly similar to those of claim 8, and, therefore, are rejected on the same grounds.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of MASUO (2021/0240392).
Regarding claim 13, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, MASUO discloses The data storage device of claim 12, wherein the scheduling system is further operable to:
determine a garbage collection balancing ratio (MASUO: [0065]: “The execution ratio of host write operations to GC write operations is referred to as, for example, a gear ratio. Increasing the ratio of GC write operations to host write operations is referred to as increasing the gear ratio. When assuming that the number of times of host write operations and the number of times of GC write operations per unit period are A and E, respectively, the gear ratio is represented as A:B”); and
execute write commands on the target metablock based, at least in part, on the garbage collection balancing ratio (MASUO: [0071]: “The gear ratio of 0:X indicates a state where the first GC process needs to be executed urgently, and thus stopping host write operations and executing GC write operations (that is, executing X GC write operations while zero host write operation is executed)”).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and MASUO are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include gear ratio associated with execution ratio of host write operation to Garbage Collection write operation disclosed by MASUO. The motivation for including gear ratio by paragraph [0063] of MASUO is for adjusting the execution cycle to execute the first GC process in a shorter cycle.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horspool et al (2023/0305745) hereinafter Horspool in view of Schuh et al (2022/0188034) hereinafter Schuh as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of in view of Chandrashekhara et al (2025/0321673) hereinafter Chandrashekhara.
Regarding claim 21, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the current limitations of claim 21.
However, Chandrashekhara discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the size associated with each of the one or more write commands comprises predicting the size of the one or more write commands (Chandrashekhara: [0031]: “the predicted I/O size may be the I/O size of a particular I/O request (i.e., write request) that is expected to be received during the future period”).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and Chandrashekhara are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include predicting I/O size of write requests disclosed by Chandrashekhara. The motivation for including predicting I/O size of write requests by paragraph [0023] of Chandrashekhara is for shortening the replication cycle during slow periods, ensuring increased protection against data loss, for whatever smaller amounts of data are written.
Regarding claim 22, Horspool and Schuh do not disclose the current limitations of claim 22.
However, Chandrashekhara discloses The data storage device of claim 9, wherein determining the sum of a size of the write commands in the command queue comprises predicting the size of each write command in the command queue (Chandrashekhara: [0031]: “the predicted I/O size may be the I/O size of a particular I/O request (i.e., write request) that is expected to be received during the future period”, the maximum I/O size out of all requests that are expected to be received, and so forth).
Disclosures by Horspool, Schuh and Chandrashekhara are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate writing data of a write command to write data to at least a second erase superblock in response to determining that the first superblock lacks the sufficient capacity taught by Horspool/Schuh to include predicting I/O size of write requests disclosed by Chandrashekhara. The motivation for including predicting I/O size of write requests by paragraph [0023] of Chandrashekhara is for shortening the replication cycle during slow periods, ensuring increased protection against data loss, for whatever smaller amounts of data are written.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on Dec. 22, 2025:
a. Rejections 112, second paragraph, to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
b. Applicant’s Arguments regarding the prior arts of record do not disclose the current amended features “comparing the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock with a sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands to determine whether the sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands is greater than the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock; and based, at least in part, on determining the sum of the determined size associated with each of the one or more write commands is greater than the amount of available space in the currently operating metablock, initiating an erase operation on a target metablock prior to the currently operating metablock reaching capacity". The arguments have been considered but not persuaded.
Horspool discloses writing a stream of data based on the sufficient capacity of a superblock. In response to determining that the write commands attempts to write data to a superblock, the controller determines whether the superblock lacks sufficient capacity to store the write data by determining whether the remainder of the declared capacity of the superblock having sufficient capacity (please see at least paragraph [0046]). When the remainder of the declared capacity of the superblock is less than a size of the write data associated with write commands, the overflow write data can be written to a second superblock (see abstract).
Schuh discloses a second superblock can be ordered to write data to subsequent to the prior superblock. This second superblock can be erased prior to completion of writing data to the prior superblock.
As such, the combination of Horspool and Schuh disclose all limitations as currently recited in claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAN V DOAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7250. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday and Friday from 10:45 AM to 4:45PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/HAN V DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2136
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2136