The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action has been issued in response to the response filed 12/1/25. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application. Applicant's arguments have been carefully considered, but are not persuasive in view of the “response to arguments” section below. The examiner appreciates Applicant's effort to distinguish over the cited prior art by presenting arguments/amendments in an attempt to distinguish or clarify the claimed invention, however, upon further consideration and/or search, the claims remain unpatentable over the cited prior art for the reasons articulated in the “response to arguments” section below. All claims pending in the instant application remain rejected and clarification and/or elaboration regarding why the claims are not in condition for allowance will hereafter be provided in order to efficiently further prosecution. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO (US PGPUB # 20160313943) in view of Li (US PGPUB # 20220206894) further in view of Yang (US PGPUB # 20220261343). With respect to independent claims 1, 4 HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang discloses: A method of non-volatile memory management [HASHIMOTO 0115-0116], the method comprising:
monitoring, by processing circuitry associated with a host device, an available spare memory percentage of a non-volatile memory included in a storage device [host monitors the amount/threshold/percentage of the free space in the storage device – HASHIMOTO 0430; although HASHIMOTO does not explicitly disclose available spare memory percentage, in the same field of endeavor Yang teaches an available spare memory percentage as a current number of spare blocks which may be expressed as a percentage from zero to a max # of spare blocks or 0 to 100% – Yang fig 2, paragraph 0006 ], the storage device communicatively connected to the host device via an OOB path between the host device and the storage device, the OOB path being separate from an input/output (I/O) path between the host device and the storage device [HASHIMOTO suggests this limitation by teaching that host 3 communicates with storage device 2 over SAS/SATA/PCIe (HASHIMOTO 0088) & advanced application interface provides for advanced garbage collection control (HASHIMOTO 0164-169) performing various garbage collection commands like host-initiated GC and idle GC - HASHIMOTO 0097, fig 15-19; HASHIMOTO does not explicitly teach an OOB/separate path for garbage collection operations relative to I/O operations although since HASHIMOTO clearly distinguishes between ordinary I/O r/w commands and an advanced set of garbage collection commands as part of a higher level management interface it stands to reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that implementing the advanced commands over a dedicated management or control channel, separate from data I/O would be a predictable design choice motivated by a desire to avoid interference/latency from the different types of commands. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Li teaches means for reducing write latency using separate paths/channels for I/O and garbage collection operations – Li abstract, 0003-0005; garbage collection and I/O operations performed on separate channels – Li abstract] [multiple separate channels/paths connect the host to the storage device, one path/channel is functional for I/O operations and a separate path/channel for garbage collection operations - Li abstract];
determining, by the processing circuitry, that the available spare memory percentage reaches a value of a trigger point to initiate a preemptive Garbage Collection (GC) process in the non-volatile memory [host initiated garbage control command, an idle garbage control command – HASHIMOTO 0098, 0167-0171, fig 36, 39 in view of Li 0005 teaching triggers performing the garbage collection operation] [garbage collection performed when the amount/threshold/percentage of the free space is reduced to a value equal to or lower than a threshold value – HASHIMOTO 0167-0171, fig 36, 39];
determining, by the processing circuitry, that the available spare memory percentage is showcasing a downward trend based on the available spare memory percentage reaching the value of the trigger point [host 3 periodically monitors the amount of the free space in the storage device 2 by transmitting to the storage device 2 a control command requesting for the amount of the free space of the storage device 2 (step S66). The amount of the free space may be represented by the number of free blocks in the storage device 2 or the ratio of the free blocks in the storage device 2… When the amount of the free space of the storage device 2 is reduced to be equal to or lower than a threshold value, the host 3 starts a greedy data discarding process on its own (step S67) - a trigger that is set off using a less than or equal to condition is understood to indicate a downward trend – HASHIMOTO 0430-0431] and
transmitting, by the processing circuitry, via the OOB path to the storage device, a command to initiate the preemptive GC process based on the available spare memory percentage showcasing the downward trend [triggers to perform preemptive garbage collection - HASHIMOTO 0430-0431; host initiated garbage control command, an idle garbage control command – HASHIMOTO 0098, 0167-0171 in view of Li abstract & 0005 teaching triggers performing the garbage collection operation & garbage collection and I/O operations performed on separate channels – Li abstract, 0005 1], the command causing the storage device to execute the preemptive GC process on the non-volatile memory upon receipt [execute host initiated garbage control command, an idle garbage control command – HASHIMOTO 0098, 0167-0171].
HASHIMOTO does not explicitly teach an OOB/separate path for garbage collection operations relative to I/O operations. Nevertheless in the same field of endeavor Li teaches means for reducing write latency using separate paths/channels for I/O and garbage collection operations – Li abstract;.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize an OOB/separate path for garbage collection operations relative to I/O operations in the invention of HASHIMOTO as taught by Li because it would be advantageous for reducing write latency – Li abstract, 0003-0005
HASHIMOTO/Li does not explicitly disclose available spare memory percentage, although this limitation is at least suggested by HASHIMOTO as indicated above. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Yang teaches an available spare memory percentage as a current number of spare blocks which may be expressed as a percentage from zero to a max # of spare blocks or 0 to 100% – Yang fig 2.
Therefore the combination of HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang teaches all limitations of the instant claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider an available spare memory percentage the invention of HASHIMOTO/Li as taught by Yang because it would be advantageous for preventing GC operations from being started and ended frequently, so as not to cause significant changes in the response time to host commands – Yang 0006.
Claims 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang further in view of Kim (US PGPUB # 20230107988).
With respect to dependent claim 2, 5 HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang does not explicitly disclose all limitations of the instant claim. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Kim teaches garbage collection using host idle wherein when the recorded data including valid data and invalid data occupy 80% or over and less than 90% of the entire storage capacity of the memory device, the operation state is set to a pre-urgent state. It is possible to perform garbage collection on the memory device in the pre-urgent state to erase the invalid data. When the invalid data is deleted so that an available storage space increases, the memory device 150 may be shifted or changed from the pre-urgent state to the clean state – Kim 0140-0141. Therefore the combination of HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang/Kim discloses wherein the value of the trigger point for initiating the preemptive GC process is different from a value for initiating an urgent GC process [urgent is over 90% and preemptive is between 80 & 90 percent – Kim 0140-0141]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set different thresholds for garbage collection based on urgency because it would be advantageous for preventing a dead state for a memory device (Kim 0137).
Claims 3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang further in view of Law (US Patent # RE49133 E).
With respect to dependent claim 3, 6 HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang does not explicitly disclose all limitations of the instant claim. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Law teaches host controlled garbage collection using various vendor-specific commands that can facilitate the start of garbage collection in a particular SSD – Law col 10 lines 61-67. Therefore the combination of HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang/Law discloses wherein the command to initiate the preemptive GC process is a Vendor Unique Command [host controlled garbage collection using various vendor-specific commands that can facilitate the start of garbage collection in a particular SSD – Law col 10 lines 61-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to allow for initiating garbage collection using a vendor specific command because it would be advantageous to facilitate garbage collection using different communication protocols between host and drive controller (Law col 10 lines 61-67).
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang further in view of Tressler (US PGPUB # 20160170646).
With respect to dependent claim 7, 8 HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang does not explicitly disclose all limitations of the instant claim. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Tressler teaches using an internal bus for garbage collection related operations to separate operations related to garbage collection from read/write operations – Tressler abstract. Therefore the combination of HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang/Tressler discloses wherein monitoring the available spare memory percentage comprises monitoring the available spare memory percentage via the OOB path [spare/free memory monitoring as disclose by HASHIMOTO & Yang may be implemented using the dedicated bus for garbage collection operations disclosed by Tressler]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor available spare memory percentage via an OOB path because it would be advantageous for minimizing contention/latency of the I/O bus by separating I/O and garbage collection related operations (Tressler abstract, 0003-0008).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the prior art. All claims pending in the instant application remain rejected. Please note that any rejections/objection not maintained from the previous Office Action have been rectified either by applicant's amendment and/or persuasive argument(s).
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 6-7, that amended limitations are not taught by the cited art [The examiner respectfully submits that amended grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments to the claims have rendered the remarks moot/unpersuasive, particularly in view of the combination of prior art including newly found HASHIMOTO/Li/Yang and Tressler as integrated into the rationale above.]
Remaining arguments are understood to be predicated on the previous arguments being persuasive and thus are unpersuasive at least on dependency merits.
All remarks are understood to have been addressed herein. If any issues remain which may be clarified by the examiner, the applicant is invited to contact the examiner to set up a telephone interview.
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARWAN AYASH whose telephone number is (571)270-1179. The examiner can normally be reached 9a-730p M-R.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached on 571-270-5935. 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.
/Marwan Ayash/ - Examiner - Art Unit 2133
/ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2133