DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to RCE filed 19 June 2026.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 12 and 20 – 28 are pending.
Claims 5 – 7 and 9 – 12, subjected to restriction requirement, are withdrawn from consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 June 2026 has been entered.
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 1 – 2, 20 – 21, 23 – 24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US 11422726) in view of Veluswamy (US 20230121646) and Benisty (US 20190250848).
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches
A method, comprising:
receiving, at a data transfer engine, a command indicating to transfer each data set of a plurality of data sets from a respective source address of a plurality of source addresses to a respective destination address of a plurality of destination addresses of a memory system;
transferring each data set of the plurality of data sets from the respective source address to the respective destination address based on receiving the command; and (Jo teaches responsive to storage device controller (data transfer engine) receiving garbage collection command (command) from host computer, copying (transferring), by said storage device controller, data from first storage zone to second storage zone (see Fig. 3, col 7 ln 55-62) where for said garbage collection command that comprises i) source zone identifier that is a range of first data block addresses (plurality of source addresses) and ii) target zone identifier that is a range of second data block addresses (plurality of destination addresses), copying said data (each data set of a plurality of data sets) from said range of first data block addresses (respective source address of a plurality of source addresses) in said first storage zone, and writing said data to said range of second data block addresses (respective destination address of a plurality of destination addresses) in said second storage zone (see col 8 ln 8-26). In exemplary embodiment, said data is copied from storage locations 140.0 – 140.2, 140,4 – 140.5, 140.8 – 140.9 and 140.11 – 140.14 (respective source address of a plurality of source addresses) to contiguous storage locations 150.6 – 150.16 (respective target address of a plurality of target addresses) (see Fig. 1A-B, col 4 ln 66-col5 ln 9). Jo also teaches said first and second storage zones are part of storage device (memory system).)
transmitting, for [each respective data set of] the plurality of data sets, [a respective] indication to a host device that the [respective data set has] plurality of data sets have been transferred (Jo teaches storage device controller transmitting response 358 (indication) to said host computer (host device) once processing of said garbage collection command is complete (see Fig. 3, col 8 ln 4-7).)
As noted in claim 1, Jo teaches a base method of sending, to host, indication that plurality of data sets have been transferred. The claimed invention improves upon said base method by sending a respective indication for each respective data set that has been transferred (see also limitation below).
transmitting, for each respective data set of the plurality of data sets, a respective indication to a host device that the respective data set has been transferred
This improvement to said base method is an application of known technique from Veleuswamy – for each data block (respective data set) of data blocks (of the plurality of data sets) that is transferred, sending (transmitting) a transfer response (respective indication) (see Veleuwamy ¶[43]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this known technique of sending a transfer response for each data block transferred can also be used in Jo’s transfer of plurality of data sets, and the result would have been predictable. In this instance, a transfer response would be transmitted for each data set of said plurality of data sets that is transferred. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that applying Veleuswamy’s known technique would have yielded i) predictable result of transmitting a transfer response (respective indication) for each data set of said plurality of data sets that is transferred, and ii) the improved claimed invention (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
As noted in claim 1, modified Jo teaches a command to transfer each data set where a respective indication is transmitted, to host, indicating each of said data set has been transferred but does not appear to explicitly teach using in-memory queue to transfer said respective indications in the following manner.
wherein transmitting the respective indications comprises transmitting the respective indications using an in-memory queue of the memory system, the in-memory queue accessible by the host device
However, Benisty teaches
wherein transmitting [the] respective indications comprises transmitting the respective indications using an in-memory queue of [the] memory system, the in-memory queue accessible by [the] host device (Benisty teaches NVMe device (memory system) controller placing (transmitting) completions (respective indications) in (using) completion queue (in-memory queue) that is in host (host device) memory (in-memory) wherein said completion queue notifies (accessible) said host of completion of data transfer (multi bytes) of a command (see ¶[2]). Note that said completion queue (in-memory queue) is used by (of) said NVMe device (memory system) controller.)
In view of Benisty, modified Jo is further modified such that said respective indications are transmitted, by said memory system, to said host device using completion queue (in-memory queue), in said host device, that notifies (accessible) said host device that transfer of said respective data set has been completed.
Jo, Veleuswamy and Benisty are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, storage management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify modified Jo in the manner described supra because NVMe (utilizing completion queue to notify host of completion of data transfer) is a scalable host interface designed to address the needs of enterprise and client system that uses PCI-express based SSD (see Benisty, ¶[2]).
Claim 20 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 1, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. Jo also teaches
An apparatus (apparatus = Fig. 3 system 300), comprising one or more controllers (one or more controllers = Fig. storage device controller 322) associated with one or more memory devices (one or more memory devices = storage device 320), wherein the one or more controllers are configured to cause the apparatus to (Jo teaches storage device 320 comprising (associated) storage device controller (see col 7 ln 51-61).)
Claim 23 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 1, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1. Jo also teaches
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to (Jo teaches processing units 910 (one or more processors) executing computer-executable instructions (instructions) (see col 16 ln 4-5) in one or more computer-readable storage media (see col 17 ln 14-22).)
Regarding claim 2, Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty teach the method of claim 1 where Jo also teaches
wherein transferring each data set of the plurality of data sets comprises:
writing each data set of the plurality of data sets to a buffer of the data transfer engine based on reading each data set of the plurality of data sets from the respective source address; and
outputting each data set of the plurality of data sets from the buffer to the respective destination address (Jo teaches storage device controller (data transfer engine) copying data from first storage zone to second storage zone (see Fig. 3, col 7 ln 57-62) by reading (reading) said data (each data set of the plurality of data sets) from range of first data block addresses (respective source address) in said first zone , and writing said data to range of second data block addresses (respective destination address) in said second zone (see col 8 ln 8-26) wherein said storage device controller read said data, from said range of first data block addresses, into (writing) a buffer (buffer) and said buffered data is written (outputting) to said range of second data block addresses (see col 6 ln 24-30). Note that due to said storage device controller writing to said buffer, there is a correspondence (of) between said storage device controller and said buffer.)
Claim 21 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 2, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 24 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 2, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Regarding claim 26, Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty teach the method of claim 1 where Jo also teaches
wherein each data set of the plurality of data sets is associated with a respective data set field of the command, and wherein each respective indication is associated with a corresponding data set field of the command (Jo teaches garbage collection command (command) comprises source zone identifier (respective data set field) that is a range of first data block of addresses (indication) in which (associated with) data (each data set of a plurality of data sets) is transferred from (see Fig. 3, col 8 ln 8-26).)
Regarding claim 28, Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty teach the method of claim 1 where Jo also teaches
wherein the command indicates one or more interrupt policies for the plurality of data sets (Jo teaches garbage collection command (command) comprises (indicates) policy 356 (one or more interrupt policies) that determine priority of said garbage collection command where when priority of said garbage collection command is lower than data access command, interrupting (interrupt) said garbage collection command (see col 9 ln 20-34) that copies data (each data set of the plurality of data sets) from source zone identifier that is a range of first data block of addresses (see Fig. 3, col 8 ln 8-26).)
Claims 3, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty, and further in view of Xie (US 20200264798) and Aiba (US 20190294555).
Regarding claim 3, Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty teach the method of claim 2 that reads a plurality of data sets for transferring (see claim 1) but does not appear explicitly teach said plurality of data sets are read overlapping in time (see limitation below).
wherein reading a first data set of the plurality of data sets at least partially overlaps in time with reading a second data set of the plurality of data sets
However, Xie teaches
wherein reading a first data set of the plurality of data sets at least partially overlaps [in time] with reading a second data set of the plurality of data sets (Xie teaches, for data migration, reading, in parallel (partially overlaps), tracks (first and second data sets) of source dataset (plurality of data sets) (see Fig. 3, ¶[38]).)
In view of Xie, modified Jo is further modified such that said plurality of data sets (for transferring) comprises tracks (first and second data sets) that are read in parallel (at least partially overlaps).
Jo, Veleuswamy, Benisty and Xie are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, storage management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify modified Jo in the manner described supra because reading in parallel increases speed of reading (Xie, ¶[10]).
As noted in claim 3, Jo in view of Veleuswamy, Benisty and Xie teach reading first and second data sets in parallel (partially overlaps) but do not appear to explicitly teach said reading in parallel overlaps in time. However, Aiba teaches reading in parallel means executing times (time) of reading operations overlap (partially overlaps) (see Aiba ¶[50]). In view of Aiba, modified Jo is further modified such that said reading of first and second data sets in parallel refers to overlapping (partially overlaps) execution times (time) of said reading.
Jo, Veleuswamy, Benisty, Xie and Aiba are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, storage management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify modified Jo in the manner described supra because reading data with overlapping time speeds up data reading process (Aiba, ¶[94]).
Claim 22 is the apparatus claim corresponding to method claim 3, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 25 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to method claim 3, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty, and further in view of Zhu (US 20160313949).
Regarding claim 27, Jo in view of Veleuswamy and Benisty teach the method of claim 1. As noted in claim 1, modified Jo teaches receiving a command at a data transfer engine, and a memory system but does not appear to explicitly teach using command queue in the following manner.
storing, at a command queue of the memory system, a respective state corresponding to each data set field of a plurality of data set fields of the command
However, Zhu teaches
storing, at a command queue of [the] memory system, a respective state corresponding to each data set field of a plurality of data set fields of [the] command (Zhu teaches each command (command), in a command queue 400 (command queue), includes three data fields (plurality of data set fields) (relating to dynamic priority parameters) – validity factor (data set field), wait-time factor (data set field) and original priority parameter (data set filed), each with respective values (respective state) (see Fig. 5, ¶[24]). Zhu also teaches said command queue is in (of) memory controller that control memory device (memory system) (see ¶[3]).)
In view of Zhu, modified Jo is further modified such that a command queue stores said command with three data fields (plurality of data set fields) (relating to dynamic priority) – validity factor, wait-time factor and original priority parameter (each data set field), each with respective values (respective state) wherein said command queue is in memory controller controlling said memory system.
Jo, Veleuswamy, Benisty, and Zhu are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, storage management.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify modified Jo in the manner described supra because it would enable high priority commands to be serviced when said high priority commands are received after low priority commands (Zhu, ¶[15-16], [19]).
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks, with respect to prior art rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, said prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly identified prior art (see rejection supra).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIE YEW whose telephone number is (571)270-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/CHIE YEW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights