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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 16th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending in this application. Applicant amended independent claims 1, 17, and 21, as well as added new dependent claim 21. Claim 14 has been canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been fully considered. The previous rejections set forth in the previously set forth in the previous Office action mailed January 16th, 2026 have been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s arguments, which have been found persuasive with respect to the prior art previously relied upon. However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection has been made, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 16th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nagashima et al. (US 2008/0209281), hereinafter Nagashima, fails to teach or suggest expected scan progress determined based on a position of a time interval within a schedule. However, as set forth in the rejection below, Nagashima teaches interval based scanning operations and monitoring scan completion progress over defined monitoring periods, while Iwata (US 2016/0266796) teaches determining expected operational activity over future calculation periods based on timing relationships and determined intervals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate interval-related expected progress determinations into Nagashima’s scanning operation framework in order to improve predication accuracy and operational efficiency.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagashima, in view of Iwata.
Regarding claim 1, Nagashima teaches a system comprising: a memory device (Nagashima, Fig. 1, storage device 100); and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory device (Nagashima, Fig. 1, control unit 190), configured to perform operations comprising: determining a schedule for scanning a plurality of blocks of the memory device (Nagashima, para. [0037], lines 1-6, "The compulsory-BMS [Background Medium Scan] monitoring time (X) is a time interval at which the storage device 100 is to determine whether the BMS needs to be compulsorily performed. For example, when the compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) is set to 2 hours, the storage device 100 determines after every 2 hours whether the BMS is to be compulsorily performed"), the schedule comprising a time period over which scanning of all blocks of the plurality of blocks is to be completed, the time period being divided into a series of time intervals (Nagashima; para. [0036]-[0039] teaches determining a schedule for scanning over defined monitoring periods, including a compulsory-BMS monitoring time and a period monitoring time, where completion proportions are monitored to determine whether scanning operations should continue, as well as continuing compulsory BMS operations across monitoring periods until the completion proportion reaches a threshold value); causing background scans to be enabled for scanning the plurality of blocks (Nagashima, para. [0014], lines 4-7, "The control device includes a first scanning unit that causes the storage device to scan data stored in the storage medium while the storage device is in an idle state"; the scanning of data while the storage device is in an idle state equates to background scanning of memory blocks); causing foreground scans to be disabled for scanning the plurality of blocks for at least a first time interval of the time period (Nagashima, para. [0014], lines 10-17, "a second scanning unit that, when the determining unit determines that the proportion of the scanned data is less than the threshold value, causes the storage device to scan unscanned data in the storage medium during a time interval between commands received by the storage device from outside while the storage device is not in an idle state, until the proportion of the scanned data is equal to or more than the threshold value"); and prior to an end of the first time interval: determining a number of scanned blocks in the plurality of blocks since a beginning of the first time interval (Nagashima, para. [0025], lines 4-7, "the storage device determines whether a completion proportion, which is a proportion of an area where the BMS has been performed in the entire storage area of a disk, is equal to or more than a threshold value"; the determination of the completion proportion requires determining how much has been scanned over a defined time interval); determining, based on the number of scanned blocks (Nagashima, para. [0024], lines 4-7, “the storage device determines whether a completion proportion, which is a proportion of an area where the BMS has been performed in the entire storage area of a disk…”; the completion proportion equates to the number of scanned blocks), whether to enable foreground scans for scanning any remaining unscanned blocks of the plurality of blocks for at least a second time interval of the time period; and in response to determining that the foreground scans should be enabled for scanning any remaining unscanned blocks of the plurality of blocks for at least the second time interval, causing the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the second time interval (Nagashima, para. [0014], lines 10-17, "a second scanning unit that, when the determining unit determines that the proportion of the scanned data is less than the threshold value, causes the storage device to scan unscanned data in the storage medium during a time interval between commands received by the storage device from outside while the storage device is not in an idle state, until the proportion of the scanned data is equal to or more than the threshold value").
Nagashima fails to teach determining whether to enable foreground scans based on an expected scan progress at the end of the first time interval comprising a percentage of a total number of blocks of the plurality of blocks to be scanned, the percentage being determined based on a position of the first time interval within the series of time intervals.
However, Iwata, in an analogous art, teaches determining whether to enable foreground scans based on an expected scan progress at the end of the first time interval comprising a percentage of a total number of blocks of the plurality of blocks to be scanned, the percentage being determined based on a position of the first time interval within the series of time intervals (Iwata, para. [0035], lines 1-4, “The expected number of access operations indicates how many times a recorded data set is expected to be accessed from the current relocation timing to the next relocation timing”; para. [0036], lines 1-2, “The calculation period differs from one recorded data set to another, depending on the next update timing”; para. [0036], lines 5-8, “If the next update timing is earlier than the next relocation timing, the calculation period is a period from the current relocation timing to the next update timing”). Iwata does not explicitly teach the limitation; however, it teaches determining expected operational activity over defined future calculation periods based on a relationship between current timing and future timing.
Nagashima and Iwata are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of storage system management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nagashima to incorporate the teachings of Iwata by including the functionality of determining expected scan progress relative to time intervals/periods.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the causing of the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the second time interval comprises enabling the foreground scans to be performed with a fixed scan cadence during the second time interval (Nagashima, para. [0038], lines 1-4, “The period monitoring time (Y) is a period at which, when it is determined that the storage device 100 compulsorily performs the BMS, the BMS is performed on an unscanned area on the disk 120. For example, when the period monitoring time (Y) is set to 10 seconds, the BMS is performed on the unscanned area after every 10 seconds”; the period monitoring time equates to a fixed scan cadence).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the causing of the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the second time interval comprises: determining a difference between the number of scanned blocks and the expected scan progress at the end of the first time interval; determining a scan cadence based on the difference; and enabling the foreground scans to be performed with the scan cadence during the second time interval (Nagashima, para. [0025], lines 4-13, “the storage device determines whether a completion proportion, which is a proportion of an area where the BMS has been performed in the entire storage area of a disk, is equal to or more than a threshold value. If the completion proportion is less than the threshold value, the storage device compulsorily performs the BMS on the unscanned area on the disk during a time interval between commands received from the higher-level device while the storage device is not in an idle state, until the completion proportion is equal to or more than the threshold value.”; the completion portion being compared to a threshold inherently implies a difference being determined, and the BMS behavior is changed based on this difference).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the determining of the scan cadence based on the difference comprises: identifying the scan cadence in a predetermined look-up table based on the difference (Nagashima, para. [0036], lines 1-4, “The monitoring-time management table 182 contains data on a period, or the like, at which the storage device 100 determines whether the BMS needs to be compulsorily performed on an unscanned area on the disk 120”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the determining of the scan cadence based on the difference comprises: calculating the scan cadence based on the difference and a cadence formula (Nagashima, para. [0050], lines 11-13, “The compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) is calculated by using the following equation:
X
=
x
/
101
”; para. [0051], lines 9-13, “The period monitoring time (Y) is determined by calculating the time for executing the BMS with the performance degradation rate (y %), as defined by the following equation:
Y
=
2
x
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
e
k
t
i
m
e
+
o
n
e
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
x
100
/
y
”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise: during a second time interval of the time period and prior to an end of the second time interval: redetermining the number of scanned blocks in the plurality of blocks since the beginning of the first time interval; determining, based on the number of scanned blocks and the expected scan progress at the end of the second time interval, whether to enable foreground scans for scanning any remaining unscanned blocks of the plurality of blocks for at least a third time interval of the time period; in response to determining that the foreground scans should be enabled for scanning any remaining unscanned blocks of the plurality of blocks for at least the third time interval, causing the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the third time interval; and in response to determining that the foreground scans should not be enabled for scanning any remaining unscanned blocks of the plurality of blocks for at least the third time interval, causing the foreground scans to be disabled for at least the third time interval (Nagashima, para. [0037], lines 1-6, “The compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) is a time interval at which the storage device 100 is to determine whether the BMS needs to be compulsorily performed. For example, when the compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) is set to 2 hours, the storage device 100 determines after every 2 hours whether the BMS is to be compulsorily performed”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches The system of claim 6, wherein the causing of the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the third time interval comprises: determining a difference between the number of scanned blocks and the expected scan progress at the end of the second time interval; determining a scan cadence based on the difference; and enabling the foreground scans to be performed with the scan cadence during the third time interval (Nagashima, para. [0043], lines 1-7, “When performing the compulsory BMS process, the BMS executing unit 193 performs the BMS on an unscanned area of the disk 120 at intervals of the period monitoring time (Y) while the storage device 100 is not in an idle state. The BMS executing unit 193 continuously performs the BMS until the completion proportion is equal to or more than the threshold value”; the repeated comparisons and timing adjustments are inherently applied to subsequent intervals).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the determining of the scan cadence based on the difference comprises: identifying the scan cadence in a predetermined look-up table based on the difference (Nagashima, para. [0036], lines 1-4, “The monitoring-time management table 182 contains data on a period, or the like, at which the storage device 100 determines whether the BMS needs to be compulsorily performed on an unscanned area on the disk 120”; the table is used iteratively so it is inherently applied to a third time interval).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the determining of the scan cadence based on the difference comprises: calculating the scan cadence based on the difference and a cadence formula (Nagashima, para. [0050], lines 11-13, “The compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) is calculated by using the following equation:
X
=
x
/
101
”; para. [0051], lines 9-13, “The period monitoring time (Y) is determined by calculating the time for executing the BMS with the performance degradation rate (y %), as defined by the following equation:
Y
=
2
x
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
e
e
k
t
i
m
e
+
o
n
e
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
i
m
e
x
100
/
y
”; the formulas are used iteratively so it is inherently applied to a third time interval).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the series of time intervals comprises N number of time intervals, and wherein the operations comprise: during an (N-1)th time interval of the time period and prior to the end of the (N-1)th time interval: redetermining the number of scanned blocks in the plurality of blocks since the beginning of the first time interval; determining, based on the number of scanned blocks, whether all blocks of the plurality of blocks have been scanned; and in response to determining that all blocks of the plurality of blocks have been scanned: causing the background scans to be disabled for an Nth time interval of the time period; and causing the foreground scans to be disabled for the Nth time interval (Nagashima, para. [0043], lines 4-7, “The BMS executing unit 193 continuously performs the BMS until the completion proportion is equal to or more than the threshold value”; once scanning is complete, scanning operations stop, which equates to background and foreground scans being disabled).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the series of time intervals comprises N number of time intervals, and wherein the operations comprise: during an (N-1)th time interval of the time period and prior to the end of the (N-1)th time interval: redetermining the number of scanned blocks in the plurality of blocks since the beginning of the first time interval; determining, based on the number of scanned blocks, whether all blocks of the plurality of blocks have been scanned; and in response to determining that not all blocks of the plurality of blocks have been scanned, causing the foreground scans to be enabled for an Nth time interval (Nagashima, para. [0025], lines 7-13, “If the completion proportion is less than the threshold value, the storage device compulsorily performs the BMS on the unscanned area on the disk during a time interval between commands received from the higher-level device while the storage device is not in an idle state, until the completion proportion is equal to or more than the threshold value”; teaches continued scanning during non-idle operations when the completion portion is less than the threshold).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein each time interval of the series of time intervals has a uniform time span (Nagashima, para. [0038], lines 1-6, “The period monitoring time (Y) is a period at which, when it is determined that the storage device 100 compulsorily performs the BMS, the BMS is performed on an unscanned area on the disk 120. For example, when the period monitoring time (Y) is set to 10 seconds, the BMS is performed on the unscanned area after every 10 seconds”; the period monitoring time is set to a fixed interval).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least two time intervals of the series of time intervals have a different time span (Nagashima, para. [0036], lines 6-8, “The monitoring-time management table 182 contains items such as compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) in hour and period monitoring time (Y) in second“).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining of the schedule comprises: determining the series of time intervals by uniformly dividing the time period into the series of time intervals such that each time interval of the series of time intervals has a uniform time span (Nagashima, para. [0043], lines 1-4, “…the BMS executing unit 193 performs the BMS on an unscanned area of the disk 120 at intervals of the period monitoring time (Y)…”; the fixed period monitoring time being in intervals equates to uniformly dividing the time period into a series of time intervals).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the determining of the schedule comprises: determining the series of time intervals by non-uniformly dividing the time period into the series of time intervals such that the series of time intervals comprises at least two time intervals having a different time span (Nagashima, para. [0049], lines 7-11, “The monitoring-time managing unit 194 then calculates the compulsory-BMS monitoring time (X) and the period monitoring time (Y) based on the BMS termination time ( x) and the performance degradation rate (y % ) to update the monitoring-time management table 182”; teaches adjustable monitoring times, which allows non-uniform time intervals that are based on a performance degradation rate).
Claim 17 is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations similar to the system of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations similar to the system of claim 3, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium with limitations similar to the system of claim 6, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is a method with limitations similar to the system of claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Nagashima in view of Iwata teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the causing of the foreground scans to be enabled for at least the second time interval comprises: determining a difference between the number of scanned blocks and the expected scan progress at the end of the first time interval; determining a scan cadence based on the difference; and enabling the foreground scans to be performed with the scan cadence during the second time interval (Nagashima, para. [0036]-[0039] teaches determining a completion proportion, threshold comparison, and deciding whether additional scanning is needed; Iwata, para. [0035], lines 1-4, “The expected number of access operations indicates how many times a recorded data set is expected to be accessed from the current relocation timing to the next relocation timing”; para. [0036], lines 1-2, “The calculation period differs from one recorded data set to another, depending on the next update timing”; para. [0036], lines 5-8, “If the next update timing is earlier than the next relocation timing, the calculation period is a period from the current relocation timing to the next update timing”). Nagashima teaches changing scanning behavior based on completion status. Once actual progress and expected progress is known, adjusting the frequency or cadence would be a predictable optimization choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Nagashima to incorporate the teachings of Iwata by including the functionality of determining scan cadence based on a difference between actual scan progress and expected scan progress.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to improve completion accuracy and efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 11,385,984) teaches variable scan intervals and scheduling read scan operations.
Gonzalez et al. (US 2005/0073884) teaches scheduling scrub operations and controlling the execution of memory maintenance operations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE V BRADEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5381. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
/G.V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights