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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendment to Claim 1 recites, “wherein only the first data is stored,” wherein upon further review of the Applicant’s disclosure, such subject matter does not appear to be described in the specification as originally filed. For purposes of examination the Office has interpreted the amended language in a similar manner to the language previously presented in now-canceled Claim 7, as this appears to have been the Applicant’s intention based on the Applicant’s Remarks filed 8/6/2026.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as they depend on rejected Claim 1.
Double Patenting
The following Double Patenting rejection was originally presented in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 9/24/2025, and although the Applicant has amended the claims, the Double Patenting rejection has been maintained.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,016,890. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recite additional details not recited in the instant claims.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12- 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4, 6, 11-12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,544. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims recite additional details not recited in the instant claims.
With regard to instant application, please refer to the tables below, which illustrates the anticipatory relationship of the claims at issue:
Instant Application 18/787,967
US Patent 11,016,890
Claims 1-2, 4
Claims 1+11
Claims 3
Claim 18
Claim 5
Claim 12
Claim 6
Claim 10
Claims 8-9
Claims 1+6
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 4
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 14
Claim 3
Claim 15-16, 18
Claim 1
Claim 19
Claim 7
Claim 20
Claim 8
Instant Application 18/787,967
US Patent 12,061,544
Claims 1-2, 4
Claims 1+11+12
Claims 3, 6
Claim 14
Claim 5
Claim 2
Claims 8-9
Claims 1+6+12
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12-13
Claim 3
Claim 14
Claim 4
Claim 15-17, 19
Claim 12
Claim 18
Claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nachimuthu et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0378344).
With regard to Claim 1, Nachimuthu teaches a system comprising:
non-volatile memory ([0027] “the mechanism employs a persistent storage device such as an SSD to back up selected data (or all data) on DRAM DIMMs (or other DRAM devices) upon detection of a power failure/power unavailable condition.”); and
at least one controller configured to, in response to detecting an impending loss of power, store first data in the non-volatile memory (Fig. 3a: CPU 304. [0039] “FIG. 5b shows a configuration under which AC power source 340 has failed or otherwise has been removed or is unavailable. In response to detecting such an event…” [0041] “In one embodiment, the DMA engine detects the socket power failure condition” [0044] “in one embodiment in response to detection of a power failure/unavailable condition, an SMI (System Management Interrupt) is signaled for BIOS to flush all the processor cache(s).” [0052] “The process flow begins in a start block 702 in which the platform power failure or platform shutdown occurs … If the platform power supply does not have enough capacitance, this operation is ignored and the DMA engine enables the In a block 706 the processor cache(s) and the write-pending queue are flushed to flush all of the persistent data (in the cache(s) and write-pending queues to memory (DRAM). SSD and starts copying data from DRAM to the SSD.” [0053] “In a block 708 the power protected DMA engine is programmed to copy the persistent area of the DRAM to the SSD.”),
wherein only the first data is stored ([0052] “In a block 706 the processor cache(s) and the write-pending queue are flushed,” and [0053] “In a block 708 the power protected DMA engine is programmed to copy the persistent area of the DRAM to the SSD,” wherein the “processor cache(s) and the write-pending queue,” i.e. the ‘first data’, are the only data disclosed as being stored. Furthermore, if the amended language is to be interpreted in a similar manner to the language previously presented in now-canceled Claim 7 then the following citation applies: [0053] “In a block 710, the processor enters a power down state, where all of the PCIe links expect the power protected links are turned off, processor to processor links (e.g., socket-to-socket links) are turned off, and the CPU cores are turned off,” wherein no further read or write operations can be performed after the all CPU cores have been turned off in Nachimuthu.).
With regard to Claim 2, Nachimuthu teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a power supply monitor configured to provide a signal to the controller responsive to detecting the impending loss of power provided by a power supply (Fig. 3a: DMA Engine 312. [0027] “when the platform power fails/becomes unavailable, the DMA engine detects the condition and reads the DRAM contents from the DRAM DIMMS and writes the data to the persistent storage device.” [0041] “In one embodiment, the DMA engine detects the socket power failure condition” [0044] “in one embodiment in response to detection of a power failure/unavailable condition, an SMI (System Management Interrupt) is signaled for BIOS to flush all the processor cache(s).”).
With regard to Claim 3, Nachimuthu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to detecting the impending loss of power, generate a log associated with storing the first data ([0077] “Under some failure conditions, enough of the operating system is still accessible to enable the surviving portion to dump the memory contents to storage (typically to a large log or debug file).”).
With regard to Claim 4, Nachimuthu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to detecting the impending loss of power, provide a signal to a host system ([0044] “in one embodiment in response to detection of a power failure/unavailable condition, an SMI (System Management Interrupt) is signaled for BIOS to flush all the processor cache(s) and then send a signal to the DMA engine to enter the power fail mode to save the DRAM content to SSD. Further details of the use of SMI are described below with reference to FIG. 10,” wherein the system shown in Fig. 3 of Nachimuthu is the “host system”.).
With regard to Claim 6, Nachimuthu teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, in response to detecting the impending loss of power, write a log associated with power fail handling ([0077] “Under some failure conditions, enough of the operating system is still accessible to enable the surviving portion to dump the memory contents to storage (typically to a large log or debug file).”).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweere et al. (US Patent 8,325,554).
With regard to Claim 15, Sweere teaches a device comprising:
a cache of a memory module (Col. 6 Ln. 1-5: “the RAID controller 104 may include cache memory storage 106 which may be used to temporarily store data as it is transferred from the host computer 102 to the RAID 108. In one example, the cache memory storage 106 may include may include volatile memory devices arranged as a double data rate (DDR) dual in-line memory modules (DIMM),” wherein a ‘DIMM’ is a type of “memory module”); and
at least one controller configured to, in response to receiving a signal from a power supply, store data received from a host by the cache prior to receiving the signal (Col. 6. Ln. 1-4: “the RAID controller 104 may include cache memory storage 106 which may be used to temporarily store data as it is transferred from the host computer 102 to the RAID 108.” Col. 6 Ln. 50-55: “One or more of these components may allow data stored in the one or more volatile memory devices 204 to be backed up in the one or more non-volatile memory devices 206 when a triggering event (e.g., a power interruption, hardware signal, and/or host system command) is detected, thereby preventing loss of data.” Col. 17 Ln. 40: “The power circuit 2100 may also include a voltage detector 2114 that is configured to sense changes in voltage from the external power source. The voltage detector 2114 may be adapted to determine when the incoming voltage level falls below a voltage threshold which may indicate a power failure or loss.” Col. 17 Ln. 51-55: “the voltage detector 2114 may also generate a power failure interrupt signal 2120. When the power failure interrupt signal 2120 is set, this is an indicator of imminent power failure and can be used by other components.”).
With regard to Claim 16, Sweere teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the cache is configured to receive write commands from the host (Col. 1 Ln. 30-32: “The cache often will momentarily contain the only copy of a piece of write data until that data can be written to the disk”).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachimuthu as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Marathe et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0046556).
With regard to claim 5, Nachimuthu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Nachimuthu does not teach the memory refresh as described in claim 5. Marathe teaches
wherein the host system is configured to implement a memory refresh in response to receiving the signal ([0043] “Another example is the asynchronous DRAM refresh (ADR) feature provided by many modern processors, in which the memory controller buffers may be flushed out to memory DIMMs on power failure,” wherein the “signal” is the signal associated with a power failure as taught above in Nachimuthu.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system as disclosed by Nachimuthu with the memory refresh as taught by Marathe since “With the ADR feature, the memory controller buffers may be considered effectively persistent in some embodiments since the data may be guaranteed to persist” (Marathe [0043]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweere in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0010499).
With regard to Claim 8, Sweere teaches an apparatus comprising:
a memory interface (Col. 6 Ln. 33-40: “The memory module 200 may include a substrate with an interface 202 (e.g., bus interface, edge connector, one or more connecting sockets, etc.) for electrically and/or physically coupling the memory module 200 to an external bus that may provide data information, address information, control information, power/ground, etc., from a host system (e.g., RAID controller or other source).”)
at least one controller configured to, in response to detecting that a voltage falls below a threshold, disable the memory interface (Col. 7 Ln. 54-55: “The backup/restore circuit 222 may be implemented by one or more controllers.” Col. 8 Ln. 24-39: “FIG. 3 illustrates a state diagram that may be implemented in a memory module to backup data upon detection of an external triggering event (e.g., power failure, hardware signal, host system command, etc.). In one example, the state diagram may be implemented by the backup/restore logic device 222… The memory module may monitor for (or receive an indicator of) an external triggering event (e.g., a low voltage, loss of power event, etc.).” Col. 9 Ln. 11-14: “an external triggering event is detected 404 (e.g., voltage to the memory module provided by an external power source falls below a threshold voltage level).” Col. 5 Ln. 41-43: “In backup mode, the controller may be adapted to decouple the volatile memory from the host system and couple it to the non-volatile memory devices,” and Col. 18 Ln. 49-52: “in FIG. 2, data bus switch 220 and address/control bus switch 218 may be reconfigured to decouple the volatile memory devices 204 from the interface 202,” wherein the decoupling described above serves to “disable the memory interface”.).
With further regard to claim 8, Sweere does not teach the receiving of write commands as described in claim 8. Tsukamoto teaches
the memory interface configured to receive write commands ([0042] “The RAID apparatus 200 shown in FIG. 2 is configured to, as function units closely associated with this embodiment 2, include a controller module (CM) 201.” [0043] “The CM 201 is a control unit configured to manage a cache, perform control of interfaces with a host, and perform control of each of the HDDs, and includes therein… a dual inline memory module (DIMM) 211.” [0036] “when the RAID apparatus 200 receives a write command from the host, which instructs writing of user data into HDDs, upon completion of storing user data into a cache memory (which will be hereinafter called ‘a cache’), the RAID apparatus 200 notifies the host of the completion of writing user data into HDD. Subsequently, the user data stored in the cache is written into the HDD after having been processed so as to satisfy predetermined conditions.” [0050] “The DIMM 211 is a cache memory which temporarily stores therein user data,” wherein the ‘Controller Module CM 201’ comprising the cache ‘DIMM 211’ in Tsukamoto is equivalent to the ‘RAID Controller 104’ and ‘Cache Memory Storage 106’ in Sweere.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Sweere with the receiving of write commands as taught by Tsukamoto since “performing writing of user data into HDDs using this method realizes improvement of access performance” (Tsukamoto [0035]).
With regard to Claim 9, Sweere in view of Tsukamoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as described above. Sweere further teaches wherein the voltage is a power supply voltage (Col. 7 Ln. 34-36: “if the external power supply provides a low voltage (e.g., a voltage level less than a threshold voltage level).” Col. 9 Ln. 11-14: “an external triggering event is detected 404 (e.g., voltage to the memory module provided by an external power source falls below a threshold voltage level).”).
With regard to Claim 10, Sweere in view of Tsukamoto teaches all the limitations of Claim 8 as described above. Sweere further teaches wherein
the memory interface is configured to receive data from a host (Col. 6 Ln. 1-5: “the RAID controller 104 may include cache memory storage 106 which may be used to temporarily store data as it is transferred from the host computer 102 to the RAID 108. In one example, the cache memory storage 106 may include may include volatile memory devices arranged as a double data rate (DDR) dual in-line memory modules (DIMM),” wherein the “cache memory storage” comprises the “memory module” shown Fig. 2 of Sweere.), and
the controller is further configured to store the data in a non-volatile memory (Col. 6 Ln. 50-55: “One or more of these components may allow data stored in the one or more volatile memory devices 204 to be backed up in the one or more non-volatile memory devices 206 when a triggering event (e.g., a power interruption, hardware signal, and/or host system command) is detected, thereby preventing loss of data.”).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweere in view of Tsukamoto as applied to Claim 8, and further in view of Jayakumar et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0188414).
With regard to claim 12, Sweere in view of Tsukamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Sweere in view of Tsukamoto does not teach the queue and cache configuration as described in claim 12. Jayakumar teaches
wherein the write commands are moved to a queue from at least one cache of a host system ([0015] “each of the cores 106 may include a Level 1 (L1) cache (116-1) (generally referred to herein as ‘L1 cache 116’) and/or Level 2 (L2) cache (e.g., discussed with reference to FIG. 3).” [0036] “WPQ or memory buffers generally refer to Write Pending Queue (WPQ) or buffers (labeled as ‘P1’ in FIG. 3) inside the iMC 310.” [0037] “buffers in the iMC 310 (shown as P1) and in the IIO switch 312 (shown as P2) reside en route to persistent memory,” wherein the WPQ buffers in Jayakumar are well-known to comprise data originating from an L1/L2 cache of a host processor core which is en route to the persistent memory, i.e. NVM 152 shown in Fig. 1 of Jayakumar.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Sweere in view of Tsukamoto with the queue and cache configuration as taught by Jayakumar as this “ensures durability of data that is residing in volatile buffers (such as one or more of memory buffer(s), IIO buffer(s), etc.), in the face of platform failures” (Jayakumar [0030]).
With regard to claim 13, Sweere teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Sweere does not teach the persisting of writes as described in claim 13. Jayakumar teaches
wherein the write commands correspond to stores to be persisted by a host system, and wherein the host system moves the write commands to a queue prior to retiring the stores ([0009] “Software considers that data written to a persistence memory range has reached durability as soon as the store instruction completes, but that data could still be residing in volatile buffers (such as memory controller write pending queue or processor caches).” [0036] “WPQ or memory buffers generally refer to Write Pending Queue (WPQ) or buffers (labeled as ‘P1’ in FIG. 3) inside the iMC 310.” [0037] “buffers in the iMC 310 (shown as P1) and in the IIO switch 312 (shown as P2) reside en route to persistent memory.” [0038] “any store operation that is done by software is considered complete once it is posted to the buffers (P1/P2) shown in this diagram. That the data is still residing in these buffers en route to NVDIMM is transparent to software and software at this point considers this as persistent data.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Sweere with the persisting of writes as taught by Jayakumar as this “ensures durability of data that is residing in volatile buffers (such as one or more of memory buffer(s), IIO buffer(s), etc.), in the face of platform failures” (Jayakumar [0030]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweere in view of Tsukamoto and Jayakumar as applied to Claim 13, and further in view of Beckmann et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0254541).
With regard to claim 14, Sweere in view of Tsukamoto and Jayakumar teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Sweere in view of Tsukamoto and Jayakumar does not teach the fence instruction as described in claim 14. Jayakumar teaches
wherein the host system ensures that stores prior to a store fence instruction are globally visible before any store after the store fence instruction becomes globally visible ([0047] “a FENCE instruction 124 performs a serializing operation on all stores to memory (e.g., write requests 130/de-coupled writethroughs 132) that were issued prior to the FENCE instruction 124. This serializing operation ensures that every store instruction that precedes the FENCE instruction 124 in program order is globally visible before any load/store instruction that follows the FENCE instruction 124 is globally visible.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus as disclosed by Sweere in view of Tsukamoto and Jayakumar with the fence instruction as taught by Beckmann as this “to enforce an ordering constraint on memory operations (e.g., reads/writes)” (Beckmann [0047]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweere as applied to Claim 15, and further in view of Jayakumar.
With regard to claim 17, Sweere teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as described above. Sweere does not teach the protected write buffer as described in claim 17. Jayakumar teaches
wherein the signal causes a central processing unit (CPU) to save a protected write buffer to persistent memory ([0036] “WPQ or memory buffers generally refer to Write Pending Queue (WPQ) or buffers (labeled as ‘P1’ in FIG. 3) inside the iMC 310,” wherein the “WPQ” is the “protected write buffer”. [0031] “a (e.g., relatively small) non-volatile shadow buffer is provided inside the processor. This is not used under normal operations. In response to occurrence of an ADR event, the processor takes a snap-shot (or copy) the contents of the volatile buffers into this non-volatile storage device. This can act as a non-volatile back up storage device for the data in the WPQ and IIO Buffers,” wherein the “non-volatile shadow buffer” is the “persistent memory”. [0036] “ADR generally refers to a legacy mechanism, which provides an external trigger, that when activated causes the data in the WPQ, conceptually referred to as ‘ADR safe zone’, to be flushed over to NVDIMM. The ADR pin is triggered by an early AC power detection circuitry... ADR covers AC power failure”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device as disclosed by Sweere with the queue and cache configuration as taught by Jayakumar as this “ensures durability of data that is residing in volatile buffers (such as one or more of memory buffer(s), IIO buffer(s), etc.), in the face of platform failures” (Jayakumar [0030]).
With regard to Claim 18, Sweere in view of Jayakumar teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 as described above. Jayakumar further teaches wherein the write buffer is a write queue, and the write queue includes write commands that are flushed responsive to the signal ([0010] “ADR is a legacy mechanism that flushes the memory controller buffers (e.g., Write Pending Queue) … in response to AC (Alternating Current) power failure.”).
With regard to Claim 19, Sweere in view of Jayakumar teaches all the limitations of Claim 18 as described above. Jayakumar further teaches wherein write commands in the write queue correspond to write operations committed by the host ([0034] “FIG. 3 illustrates a block diagram of various components present on a processor Integrated Circuit (IC) die 300, according to an embodiment. For example, processor die 300 may include the same or similar components as those discussed with reference to processors of FIGS. 1-2 and 5-7 in various embodiments,” wherein the “processor Integrated Circuit (IC) die 300” is the “host”. [0036] “As discussed herein, WPQ or memory buffers generally refer to Write Pending Queue (WPQ) or buffers (labeled as ‘P1’ in FIG. 3) inside the iMC 310. The data in the WPQ is waiting to be committed to memory, but are globally visible.” [0038] “Moreover, any store operation that is done by software is considered complete once it is posted to the buffers (P1/P2) shown in this diagram. That the data is still residing in these buffers en route to NVDIMM is transparent to software and software at this point considers this as persistent data. Any system power failure or reset at this point may result in a silent data corruption since software considered this data as committed to persistent storage.”).
With regard to Claim 20, Sweere in view of Jayakumar teaches all the limitations of Claim 19 as described above. Jayakumar further teaches device of claim 19, wherein the write commands are flushed based on an instruction provided by software executing on the host ([0072] “In various embodiments, the operations discussed herein, e.g., with reference to FIGS. 1-7, may be implemented as hardware (e.g., circuitry), software, firmware, microcode, or combinations thereof, which may be provided as a computer program product… having stored thereon instructions (or software procedures) used to program a computer to perform a process discussed herein.”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 1-5 of the Remarks filed 8/6/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments that the features of Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12-20 are not taught by the cited prior art, the Office respectfully disagrees and refers applicant to the rejection of the instant claims as discussed supra with respect to the same.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding Claim 1, Page 1 of the Remarks, that Nachimuthu does not teach the amended limitations of Claim 1 since Nachimuthu does not teach, “after the impending loss of power is detected, no further read or write operations, other than storing the first data, can be performed using the non-volatile memory”, the Office respectfully disagrees. In response to this argument, it is first noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “after the impending loss of power is detected, no further read or write operations, other than storing the first data, can be performed using the non-volatile memory”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to the Applicant’s argument, Page 3 of the Remarks, that the newly amended language of Claim 8 is not taught by the previously cited prior art, this argument has been fully considered but is moot in view of the newly cited Tsukamoto et al. (US PGPUB 2011/0010499) reference as discussed above in the respective rejections.
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding Claim 15, Page 4 of the Remarks, that Sweere does not teach the newly amended language of Claim 15 since Sweere does not teach, “data received from a host by a cache of a memory module prior to the signal”, the Office respectfully disagrees. The Office would like to draw the Applicant’s attention to the following citations in Sweere:
Col. 6 Ln. 1-5: “the RAID controller 104 may include cache memory storage 106 which may be used to temporarily store data as it is transferred from the host computer 102 to the RAID 108. In one example, the cache memory storage 106 may include may include volatile memory devices arranged as a double data rate (DDR) dual in-line memory modules (DIMM).”
Col. 6 Ln. 50-55: “One or more of these components may allow data stored in the one or more volatile memory devices 204 to be backed up in the one or more non-volatile memory devices 206 when a triggering event (e.g., a power interruption, hardware signal, and/or host system command) is detected, thereby preventing loss of data.”
Col. 21 Ln. 40-46: “Upon receiving a triggering event indicator signal 2802 (e.g., power failure interrupt signal from a voltage detector or an external source indicating imminent loss of power to the memory module), the logic device 2800 may be configured to enter backup mode. In backup mode, the logic device 2800 facilitates data storage from volatile memory into non-volatile memory.”
As such, in view of at least the citations above, it has first been shown that the “cache memory storage” associated with the “RAID controller” may include “volatile memory devices,” which store data received from a host prior to receiving a signal associated with a ‘triggering event’, wherein such data is backed up in the “non-volatile memory devices” when the triggering event is detected, such as the voltage level falling below a threshold voltage.
Therefore, for at least the reasons discussed above, the rejection of Claim 15 has been maintained, as the disclosure of Sweere has been shown to teach and anticipate the newly amended limitations of Claim 15.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments that the features of the remaining claims are not taught by the cited prior art, the Office respectfully disagrees. These arguments rely upon the arguments as presented in relation to Claims 1, 8 and 15, and as such the Office directs the Applicant to the responses above regarding these arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Brant et al. (US PGPUB 2003/0097524) discloses a method and system for implementing an adaptive write policy for handling host write commands in a dual active controller environment, wherein a primary controller comprises a RAM memory operable as a cache to store received host write command data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J SIMONETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM 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, Arpan Savla can be reached at (571) 272-1077. 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 J SIMONETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights