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
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments filed on February 3rd, 2026, have been carefully considered.
Claims 1, 10, 16, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been added or canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, the claims are drawn to “a mapping between respective zone group size metrics and distinct data types” for which the examiner finds the wording confusing. The typical meaning of mapping is logical to physical mapping. Are the claims stating that the mapping is relating such logical or physical addresses to zone group size metrics and the data types. Or the claims can be interpreted to mean the mapping is completely unrelated to the logical and physical address mapping and could is just a mapping that maps data types to zone group size metrics. Thus, the ambiguity in the limitation phrasing makes the claims indefinite.
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [US2023/0342028] in view of Wei et al. [US2014/0095827]. Lee teaches zone hints for zoned namespace storage devices. Wei teaches memory storage device and a related zone-based block management and mapping method.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Lee teaches a method comprising:
one or more memory devices [Lee figure 1, feature 103 “System Memory”]; and
a processing device coupled to the one or more memory devices [Lee figure 1, feature 102 “Processor”], wherein the processing device is to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a controller of a memory sub-system [Lee paragraph 0020, first lines “…one or more communications controllers 104…”], a set of host data items for storage at the memory sub-system [Lee paragraph 0022, middle lines “…based on dataset(s) that are to be stored by the computer system 101…”], , wherein each of the set of host data items is associated with a common data type [Lee paragraph 0023, middle lines “…these attribute(s) include one or more of a dataset size, a dataset type, a dataset source, a dataset availability, a type of operation associated with creation of the dataset, an identity of one or more related datasets, and the like…”];
Lee fails to explicitly teach identifying, by the controller, and from a data structure storing a plurality of mappings between respective zone group size metrics and distinct data types, a zone group size metric associated with the common data type of the set of host data items.
However, Wei does teach identifying, by the controller [Wei paragraph 0043, middle lines “…The memory controller 220…”], and from a data structure storing a plurality of mappings between respective zone group size metrics [Wei paragraph 0062, middle lines “…This is because different types of workload are characterized by different number/amount of page zones 308 and block zones 310…”] and distinct data types [Wei paragraph 0007, first half “…dividing the memory into multiple memory zones based on demand, and each memory zone may be independently configurable and may dynamically use page-based address mapping (i.e. to form page zones) or block-based address mapping (i.e. to form block zones), in accordance with the determined nature of the workload of an application environment…” and paragraph 0059 and 0060, most lines “…various types of workload were used to extensively evaluate Z-Map 300. In this respect, a set of real-world traces is used to study the efficiency of the different address mapping schemes versus Z-Map 300 on a wide spectrum of enterprise-level workloads… Evaluation Metrics…The following parameters are used as metrics for the evaluation of the simulation results: (i). average response time, (ii). erase count (i.e. indicators of the garbage collection overhead), and (iii). size of mapping table. Collectively, these parameters provide information to characterize the behavior and performance of the different address mapping schemes…”] a zone group size metric associated with the common data type of the set of host data items [Wei paragraph 0065, last lines “…use of page-based or block-based address mapping for a memory zone 4021, 4022 . . . 402i is dynamically determined by Z-Map 300 only during allocation phase, since the peculiar characteristics of different workload types demand allocation of different number of page zones 308 and block zones 310. In particular, Z-Map 300 is configured to assign more block zones 310 for sequential-intensive workload environments, and to conversely provide more page zones 308 for random-intensive workload environments…”(Where the examiner has determined workload types to read on data types since the workload types would create data types.)
Lee and Wei are analogous arts in that they both deal with zoned data storage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lee’s zone groups with Wei’s use of mapping logical to physical addresses to different zones based on data type for the benefit of achieving higher performance by efficiently adapting to different types of workloads via the use of on-demand Zone Allocation and flexible address mapping [Wei paragraph 0062, middle lines “…that Z-Map 300, based on the current embodiment, advantageously achieves high performance by efficiently adapting to different types of workloads via the use of on-demand Zone Allocation and flexible address mapping…”].
programming, by the controller, the set of host data items to memory cells of a zone group having a zone group size indicated by the zone group size metric [Lee paragraph 0028, most lines “…the zone manager 107 has grouped the zone with one or more other zones such that a size of the group matches a natural zone size for the ZNS storage device 111. In embodiments, this group of zones stores related datasets which will be written/programmed together as a group by computer system 101. For example, when programming the zone group the computer system 101 stripes write operations across all zones within the group. In embodiments, the zone group hint is an instruction operable (i.e., by the hint processor 113) to cause the ZNS storage device 111 to allocate physically adjacent storage resources to zones in the group in order to gain performance benefits and power efficiencies when the computer system 101 stripes I/O operations across all zones within the group…”].
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 17, as per claim 1, Lee teaches determining whether a size of the received set of host data items equals a zone group size indicated by the identified zone group size metric [Lee paragraph 0029, middle lines “…the zone has a “natural” size for the NAND flash media, since its blocks are comprised of pages spanning all of the die's vertically-arranged planes…”], wherein the set of host data items is programmed to the memory cells of the zone group responsive to a determination that the size of the received set of host data items equals the zone group size indicated by the zone group size metric [Lee paragraph 0029, first lines “…an allocation of a naturally-sized storage zone within NAND flash media. FIG. 2A shows a plurality of NAND flash planes (i.e., “Plane 0” to “Plane 3”), such as planes which are vertically-arranged on the same NAND flash die. Each of these planes comprises a plurality of pages (P), which are each composed of a plurality of NAND memory cells. In FIG. 2A, the physical storage resources (i.e., the pages) within these planes are illustrated as being allocated into a single zone (i.e., Z0) comprising a plurality of blocks (i.e., B0-Bn)…”].
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 18, as per claim 1, Lee teaches responsive to determining that the size of the received set of host data items does not equal the zone group size indicated by the identified zone group size metric [Lee paragraph 0031, first lines “…generation of the zone group hint by the hint generator 110 enables the zone generator 109 to create non-naturally sized zones for the ZNS storage device 111 (which are suitable for a dataset size utilized by software), while enabling the ZNS storage device 111 to operate on naturally-sized groups of zones, and to achieve the performance and power efficiencies associated therewith…”], updating the zone group size indicated by the zone group size metric to equal the size of the set of host data items [Lee paragraph 0030, first lines “…an allocation of a group of non-naturally-sized storage zones that together reach the natural zone size of the NAND flash media. FIG. 2B shows the same plurality of vertically-arranged NAND flash planes (i.e., “Plane 0” to “Plane 3”), each comprising a plurality of pages (P) composed of NAND memory cells…”].
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 19, as per claim 1, Lee teaches prior to programming the set of host data items to the memory cells of the zone group, determining that the memory cells of the zone group satisfy a parallelism criterion [Lee paragraph 0008, last lines “…by the manner in which the computer system accesses the zone (i.e., by accessing the zone in parallel with physically related zones)…”].
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 20, as per claim 1, Lee teaches the common data type comprises at least one of a read-intensive input/output (IO) workload data type, a write-intensive IO workload data type, or a mixed read and write IO workload data type [Lee paragraph 0010, first lines “…a computer system to indicate that I/O operations to a particular zone will be related to background activity. In embodiments, the background operation hint communicates to a ZNS storage device that, when I/O operations are issued to the zone, those operations can be deprioritized with respect to other I/O operations. In an example of deprioritizing an I/O operation, a ZNS storage device holds one or more I/O operations issued to a first zone assigned the background operation hint until completion of one or more I/O operations issued to second zone not assigned the background operation hint…”].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, as per claim 1, Lee teaches the common data type corresponds to a data type for a particular file associated with the set of host data items [Lee paragraph 0023, middle lines “…these attribute(s) include one or more of a dataset size, a dataset type, a dataset source, a dataset availability, a type of operation associated with creation of the dataset, an identity of one or more related datasets, and the like…”].
Regarding claim 7, as per claim 1, Lee teaches updating a cursor associated with the memory sub-system to indicate that incoming host data having the common data type is to be programmed to the memory cells of the zone group [Lee paragraph 0037, middle lines “…this same group identifier is commonly used for each zone in a group of zones. Thus, for example, the zone manager 107 sets the zone group identifier field to a common value in the zone-specific metadata for each zone in a zone group…”(Where the examiner has determined when giving the cursor it’s BRI that a group identifier would read on said cursor.)].
Regarding claim 8, as per claim 1, Lee teaches transmitting, to the host system, an indication of the zone group size indicated by the zone group size metric [Lee paragraph 0027, first lines “…Using one or more messages (which may be the same messages discussed previously, or may be separate messages) sent over communications channel 118, the zone manager 107 communicates one or more hints generated by the hint generator 110 to the controller 112 at the ZNS storage device…”(Where the messages are transmitted to communicate to the host.)].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. [US2023/0342028] in view of Wei et al. [US2014/0095827] further in view of Storer [US2014/0164694]. Lee teaches zone hints for zoned namespace storage devices. Wei teaches memory storage device and a related zone-based block management and mapping method. Storer teaches decoupled reliability groups.
Regarding claim 9, as per claim 1, Lee and Wei fail to explicitly teach the set of data items comprise parity data. However, Storer does teach the set of data items comprise parity data [Storer paragraph 0073, first lines “…three data zones and a single parity zone make up a reliability group…”].
Lee, Wei, and Storer are analogous arts in that they all deal with arranging storage into zone areas.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the teachings of Lee’s and Wei’s zone storage with Storer’s parity zone information for improving reliability and recoverability [Storer paragraph 0004, first lines “…used to improve data reliability and improve the ability to recover from data errors…”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 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 ERIC CARDWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1379. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10-6pm 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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC CARDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights