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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4 December, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1,3-7,10-11 and 13-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 4 September, 2025. Examiner further acknowledges amendments to the claims which have overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. Upon further search and consideration, amended claims have been rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0193206), hereinafter referred to as Ishii, in view of BenHanokh et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2024/0070079), hereinafter referred to as BenHanokh, and Marcu et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0258585), hereinafter referred to as Marcu.
In regard to claim 1, Ishii teaches a storage device comprising: a memory in which kept data units are stored (Fig. 1 HDU 5, 7); and a controller configured to perform a migration operation (Fig. 1 migration controller 4C) of migrating the kept data units to an external storage device based on a request from a host (Paragraph 0039, lines 2-7 update request results in migration to destination storage by reproducing requests as a host to the destination storage), wherein the controller selects updated data units, from a plurality of kept data groups with N data units included in a kept data group for which an update check request has been made (Paragraph 0048, update requests are reproduced to write (e.g. select and migrate) updated data units from snapshot volumes (i.e. kept data groups) which functionally contain some number of data units), by determining whether each of the N data units included in the kept data group has been updated when receiving the update check request for the plurality of kept data groups from the host (Paragraph 0136, blocks are scanned for a difference from a previous snapshot (e.g. selected by determining an update) before migration), performs a selection operation of storing the updated data units in an update cache (Paragraph 0079 cache memory 113 stores data received from a host (e.g. updates); in a migration operation the first storage controller acts as a host to the second controller, so updated data units are eventually stored in the first and the second device's cache), wherein N is a natural number equal to or greater than 2 (Fig. 9 volumes include four data units each), achieving the claimed limitations.
Ishii does not teach an embodiment wherein a controller predicts a kept data group for which an update check request is to be made next by the host, among the plurality of kept data groups, by analyzing the N data units, and performs a selection operation on the kept data group for which the update check request is to be made next. However, BenHanokh discloses a process including identifying data items predicted to be accessed based on analyzing already requested items (Fig. 4 step 420), and selecting them to be cached (Paragraph 0051, lines 1-5), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of BenHanokh in order to predict migratable data units and benefit from "technical improvements to caching technology in storage servers" (Paragraph 0023, lines 1-3).
Ishii and BenHanokh do not teach the limitation of confirming and predicting physical locations, however Marcu teaches an embodiment wherein the controller confirms physical locations corresponding to the N kept data units included in the plurality of kept data groups for which the update check request has been made, including physical locations for a first start logical address and a first end logical address corresponding to the update check request (Marcu Fig. 2, controller 122 includes physical address predictor 250; Marcu Fig. 6A, sequence of addresses must have a start and end; access may constitute update request of Ishii Paragraph 0039, lines 2-7 in a combination);based on the confirmed physical locations, determines physical locations that are indicated by a second start logical address and a second end logical address to be included in a next update check request and that correspond to an N kept data units included in a kept data group from among the plurality of kept data groups associated with the next update check request (Marcu Fig. 6C, prediction model is trained on physical addresses; Marcu Fig. 6D, at least one predicted physical address is returned, e.g. start and end address are predicted to be at least equal; Marcu Fig. 8 step 810 predicted physical addresses are correlated to logical addresses), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Marcu in order to predict physical address accesses and save time and power (Paragraph 0025, lines 15-21).
As for claim 11, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 1, as the claims are directed to the same limitations and therefore rejected on the same rationale.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 13-14, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of BenHanokh, Marcu, and Song et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0188029), hereinafter referred to as Song.
In regard to claim 3, the previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 2. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 3. However, Song teaches a controller (Fig. 2 interface controller 202) managing data stored in a cache (Fig. 2 volatile memory 204 can act as cache; see Paragraph 0011 lines 1-5) in units of a second size, which is greater than a first data unit size, by setting the updated data units that have been merged by a predetermined number as a transmission data unit (Paragraph 0074, lines 1-17 disclose combining two data sets to create a data packet (i.e. transmission data unit) equivalent to the cache-line size (i.e. second data unit size) for storage in the cache), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Song in order to "benefit from the advantages of non-volatile memory while maintaining compatibility with a host device through the volatile memory" (Paragraph 0011, lines 5-10).
As for claim 4, the previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 3. Additionally, Ishii teaches a selection and copy loop for migrating data from kept data groups. Paragraphs 0144-0146 disclose migrating an oldest snapshot generation from a volume (i.e. selecting and copying from a kept data group) and subsequently migrating a newer generation located in another volume until the target generation is migrated, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 6, the previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 4. Additionally, Ishii teaches a first selection operation for the oldest generation to be moved to the external data volume (Paragraph 0132). After suspending updates to the data volume (Paragraph 0133), the update processing loop is performed with second selection operations to migrate the remaining snapshot data to the external snapshot volume (Paragraphs 0134-0139). This results in a first selection operation from the data volume 125 in Fig. 10, followed by several second selection operations from the snapshot volumes 126 which are set during the loop of update checking, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 7, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 6, as claim 7 is directed to a broader set of limitations which encompass those of claim 6.
As for claim 13, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 3, as the claims are directed to the same limitations and therefore rejected on the same rationale. Additionally, Song teaches managing kept data units based on address mapping information (Paragraph 0074, lines 9-14) and setting a second size units based on transmission mapping information (Paragraph 0071, volatile memory e.g. cache memory is managed according to information which maps to cache lines and associated rows e.g. transmission data units), achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 14, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 4, as the claims are directed to the same limitations and therefore rejected on the same rationale.
As for claim 15, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 6, as the claims are directed to the same limitations and therefore rejected on the same rationale.
As for claim 16, applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 7, as the claims are directed to the same limitations and therefore rejected on the same rationale.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of BenHanokh, Marcu, Song, and Chinnakkonda Vidyapoornachary et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0277543), hereinafter referred to as C.V. The previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 4. Additionally, Ishii discloses entering a mode wherein update of kept data units is prohibited when performing a single migration operation (Paragraphs 0135-0139 single migration operation; Paragraph 0151 writes are prohibited to data units being migrated). Ishii does not teach triggering this mode when a number of updated data units stored in the update cache is less than a critical number based on a selection operation performed when access requests are permitted. However, C.V. teaches triggering a migration operation when a quantity of data in a first memory is below a transfer threshold (Paragraph 0050, lines 4-6), which occurs after an allocation (i.e. selection) operation (Fig. 4 step 402), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine C.V. in order to ensure timely migrations and "reduce memory latency and improve computer system performance while performing memory consolidation" (Paragraph 0032, lines 8-11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii in view of BenHanokh, Marcu, Song, and Horiguchi et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0176787), hereinafter referred to as Horiguchi. The previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 10. However, Horiguchi teaches a controller having multiple processors associated with managing respective NAND chips (Fig. 2 second CPUs 315' associated with NAND chips 32'; Paragraphs 0077-0080 second CPUs manage read commands). In a typical storage device having data spread across multiple NAND chips, this would result in multiple processors performing selection operations on different data units, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Horiguchi in order to benefit from parallelization of operations and reduce power consumption (Paragraph 0011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see page 8 of response filed 4 December, 2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended independent claims have included limitations of previously rejected claim 9. Page 12 of Applicant’s response indicates that the reference Marcu used in rejecting claim 9 cannot be combined with the reference Ishii as Ishii does not perform migration based on host input. However, Ishii ¶ 0039, as cited in the rejection of claim 1, states that storage controllers perform snapshot update and migration based on a received update request by reproducing the request as if the storage is another host computer, which would indicate to one of ordinary skill in the art that migration occurs based on update requests from an initial host computer, like the host 30 shown in Ishii Fig. 2. This would then allow the cited combination to achieve the claimed limitations. The rejections of the amended independent claims have been updated to include the rationale from the previous rejection of claim 9. As the limitations of the claims are otherwise the same but rearranged, the rejections are otherwise unchanged.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, 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.
/ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139