DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/25/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Non-Patent Literature (NPL) entries “1” and “2” have neither a publication date nor a ‘retrieved from the internet’ date. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
Change to “…track a total command rate of the controller, wherein the total command rate is a number of commands…” (page 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. See Claim 17 (…means to store data; and…). Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 recite the limitation "can handle." The term “can” fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Does the claimed data storage device handle the number of pending commands, or does it not?
Because Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 depend upon Claims 1, 12, and 17, respectively, Claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the failure" in page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
track a total queue depth of one or more host queues, wherein the total queue depth is a number of pending commands the data storage device can handle at a time, and
tracking the total queue depth comprises modifying the total queue depth when at least one command is written to the one or more host queues; and
determine whether to alert a host device based on the modified total queue depth.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘track’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “tracking” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation associated with data.
The ‘modifying’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “modifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data and making a change either on, e.g., paper or on a generic display.
The ‘determine’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person thinking about a decision associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
a data storage device,
a memory device, and
a controller.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 recites:
alert the host device based upon the determining.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 2 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘alert’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “alerting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting, notifying, or manipulating associated with data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 4 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 4 recites:
track a total command rate of the controller, the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘track’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “tracking” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data.
Claim 5 merely further describes the claimed determining step of Claim 1 as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 6 recites:
determining whether a failure of the data storage device is actual or perceived, wherein the failure is perceived when the total command rate is less than the total queue depth.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person thinking about a decision associated with data.
Claim 7 recites:
determine whether a timeout threshold has been exceeded, and
determine whether the timeout threshold is going to be exceeded.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitations in # 7 and 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an evaluation associated with data.
Claim 8 recites:
alert the host device when the failure of the data storage device is perceived.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 8 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘alert’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “alerting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting, notifying, or manipulating associated with data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 9 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 9 recites:
increasing the total queue depth when the at least one command is written to a first host queue of the one or more host queues; and
decreasing the total queue depth when the at least one command is written to a second host queue of the one or more host queues.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘increasing’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “increasing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data and making a change either on, e.g., paper or on a generic display.
The ‘decreasing’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “decreasing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data and making a change either on, e.g., paper or on a generic display.
Claim 10 merely further describes the claimed first host queue of Claim 9 as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 11 merely further describes the claimed second host queue of Claim 9 as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 12 recites:
track a total queue depth of one or more host queues, wherein the total queue depth is a number of pending commands the data storage device can handle at a time, and tracking the total queue depth comprises:
increasing the total queue depth when at least one command is written to a first host queue of the one or more host queues; and
decreasing the total queue depth when at least one command is written to a second host queue of the one or more host queues; and
determine a reason of a failure of the data storage device based on the total queue depth and a total command rate, wherein the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘track’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “tracking” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making an observation associated with data.
The ‘increasing’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “increasing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data and making a change either on, e.g., paper or on a generic display.
The ‘decreasing’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “decreasing” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an observation associated with data and making a change either on, e.g., paper or on a generic display.
The ‘determine’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an evaluation associated with data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
a data storage device,
a memory device, and
a controller.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 13 merely further describes the claimed first host queue and the claimed second host queue of Claim 12 as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the reason of the failure of the data storage device is actual or perceived, wherein the failure is perceived when the total command rate is less than the total queue depth, and
…alert a host device when the failure of the data storage device is perceived.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 14 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
# 16 above merely further describes the claimed reason of the failure of Claim 12 as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The ‘alert’ limitation in # 17 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “alerting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely outputting, notifying, or manipulating associated with data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 17 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 16 recites:
evaluate the total command rate after the at least one command is written to the second host queue.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘evaluate’ limitation in # 18 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “evaluating” in the context of this claim encompasses the person making an evaluation associated with data.
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1, 2, 4-14, and 16 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0117623 A1), hereinafter “Han.”
With regards to Claim 1, Han teaches:
a data storage device (¶ 0030; regarding, e.g., storage device 302; Fig. 5; and ¶ 0037.), comprising:
a memory device (¶ 0030; Fig. 5; and ¶ 0037.), and
a controller coupled to the memory device (¶ 0030; Fig. 5; and ¶ 0037; regarding, e.g., SSD controller 206 [see Fig. 2] which includes completion manager 314.), wherein the controller is configured to:
track a total queue depth (¶ 0036; Fig. 5; ¶ 0038; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044; regarding, e.g., a command queue depth of command queue 304 associated with a depth threshold and/or a number of completions in completion queue 306 associated with a completion threshold.) of one or more host queues (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0040-0044; regarding, e.g., the command queue 304 and the completion queue 306.), wherein the total queue depth is a number of pending commands the data storage device can handle at a time (Fig. 5; ¶ 0038; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044.), and tracking the total queue depth comprises modifying the total queue depth when at least one command is written to the one or more host queues (¶ 0031; Fig. 5; ¶ 0038; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044.); and
determine whether to alert a host device based on the modified total queue depth (¶ 0035; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0044; regarding, e.g., determining to send or not send an interrupt [alert] to the host.).
With regards to Claim 2, Han teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Han further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to alert the host device based upon the determining (¶ 0035; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0044.).
With regards to Claim 9, Han teaches the device of Claim 1 as referenced above. Han further teaches:
wherein tracking the total queue depth of the one or more host queues further comprises:
increasing the total queue depth when the at least one command is written to a first host queue of the one or more host queues (¶ 0031; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044; regarding, e.g., storing commands in the command queue 304. As interpreted by the Examiner, when one or more commands are stored in the command queue, the total depth of commands must increase.); and
decreasing the total queue depth when the at least one command is written to a second host queue of the one or more host queues (¶ 0031; ¶ 0033; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044; regarding, e.g., storing outcomes from execution of commands in the completion queue 306 and then removing the outcomes after an interrupt is processed. As interpreted by the Examiner, when one or more outcomes are removed from the completion queue, the depth of commands must decrease.).
With regards to Claim 10, Han teaches the device of Claim 9 as referenced above. Han further teaches:
wherein the first host queue is a submission queue (¶ 0031; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044.).
With regards to Claim 11, Han teaches the device of Claim 9 as referenced above. Han further teaches:
wherein the second host queue is a completion queue (¶ 0031; Fig. 6; and ¶ 0040-0044.).
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, and further in view of Ebsen et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,423,335 B2), hereinafter “Ebsen.”
With regards to Claim 4, Han teaches the device of Claim 2 as referenced above. Han further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to track a total command rate of the controller (Fig. 6 and ¶ 0041; regarding, e.g., processing commands per unit time as throughput.).
Han does not explicitly teach:
the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s) in accordance with the device of Claim 2.
However, Ebsen teaches:
the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s) (Fig. 2; col. 3, lines 59-67; col. 4, lines 1-17; and col. 4, lines 51-53.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Han with monitoring IOPS as taught by Ebsen because a simple substitution of one known element (throughput in general – Han: Fig. 6 and Han: ¶ 0041) for another (IOPS) can be performed to obtain predictable results (providing known means for measuring a kind of throughput to be used for optimizing performance – Ebsen: col. 4, lines 51-53).
With regards to Claim 5, Han in view of Ebsen teaches the device of Claim 4 as referenced above. Han in view of Ebsen further teaches:
wherein determining whether to alert the host device is further based on the total command rate of the controller (Han: Fig. 6 and Han: ¶ 0040-0044.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, further in view of Ebsen, and further in view of Camp et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 9,569,118 B2), hereinafter “Camp.”
With regards to Claim 7, Han in view of Ebsen teaches the device of Claim 4 as referenced above. Han in view of Ebsen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether a timeout threshold has been exceeded, and
determine whether the timeout threshold is going to be exceeded in accordance with the device of Claim 4.
However, Camp teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether a timeout threshold has been exceeded (Fig. 5 and col. 9, lines 17-30.), and
determine whether the timeout threshold is going to be exceeded (Fig. 5 and col. 9, lines 17-30.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Han in view of Ebsen with detecting that one or more latency thresholds are, or will be, exceeded as taught by Camp because tracking latencies allow for support of tight response time distributions for IOPs services by a data storage system (Camp: col. 7, lines 60-64), thereby improving system response times.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of independent Claims 12 and 17 were neither found through a search of the prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 12: “…determine a reason of a failure of the data storage device based on the total queue depth and a total command rate, wherein the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s).”
Claim 17: “…determine a reason of a failure of the data storage device based on the total queue depth and a total command rate, wherein the total command rate is a number of commands processed by the data storage device per second (IOP/s);…”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hughes (U.S. Patent No. US 6,493,772 B1); teaching a system and method implemented in a data storage system that provides a status corresponding to a command initiated by a host server to the host server within a guaranteed maximum command response time. In one aspect, the system and method of the present invention accomplish this by associating a time stamp with the command before it is distributed to a number of data storage devices to be executed. The progress of the command's execution is monitored at an interval less than the maximum command response time. If the present invention determines that the command will not complete within the maximum command response time, the system method of the present invention sends a corresponding status to the host server.
Shin et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,925,805 B2); teaching a method of managing critical resource usage in a storage network comprising receiving, in a storage controller, an input/output operation from a host, wherein the input/output operation identifies a storage unit, placing the input/output operation in a waiting queue, determining a maximum queue depth for at least one critical resource in the storage network required to execute the input/output command against the storage unit, and blocking one or more subsequent input/output commands from the host for the storage unit when the wait queue for the critical resource exceeds the maximum queue depth.
Onufryk et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 8,554,968 B1); teaching a nonvolatile memory controller that processes a nonvolatile memory command and generates a completion status for the nonvolatile memory command. The nonvolatile memory controller transmits the completion status to a host processing unit for storage in a completion queue of the host processing unit. An interrupt manager in the nonvolatile memory controller determines the completion queue contains an unprocessed completion status and generates an interrupt message packet. The nonvolatile memory controller transmits the interrupt message packet to the host processing unit for triggering an interrupt in the host processing unit and alerting the host processing unit to the unprocessed completion status.
Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0113615 A1); teaching a data storage device which includes one or more storage elements and a controller. The controller executes a command of the host, updates a completion queue of a host, and transfers an interrupt to the host. The controller monitors a completion queue tail doorbell and a completion queue head doorbell and generates the interrupt based on the monitoring result. The data storage device may generate an interrupt in consideration of a status of the completion queue. Therefore, performance of the host may be improved by the data storage device.
DeRosa et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,310,923 B1); teaching systems and methods for probabilistic aging command sorting, including adjusting an execution order for a command based on a probability of the command reaching a time out threshold. Various example embodiments are directed to selecting a command for execution from a queue of commands awaiting execution, in which the commands have non-uniform attributes influencing their selection and a time limit within which to execute them. In some embodiments, an apparatus may comprise a circuit configured to calculate a first estimated access time to execute a selected command from a command queue, modify the first estimated access time based on a probability of the selected command reaching a time-out age threshold to determine a time out-adjusted access time, and execute the selected command in an order based on the time out-adjusted access time.
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,318,174 B2); teaching a computer system that includes a host and a storage device. The host provides an input/output request (IO request). The storage device receives the request from the host and sends an interrupt informing input/output completion (IO completion) to the host after completing the IO request. The host adjusts the number of generated interrupts of the storage device using the number of delayed IOs. The computer system may adaptively control interrupt generation of the storage device based on a load status of a CPU or the number of delayed IOs. The interrupt generation of the storage device may be adjusted to obtain a CPU gain without loss of performance or processing time of the computer system.
Benisty (U.S. Patent No. US 10,387,078 B1); teaching technologies and techniques for use by a data storage controller (such as a non-volatile memory (NVM) controller) to adaptively throttle the issuance of commands by a host to the controller. In illustrative examples, an NVM controller throttles the insertion of commands by the host into its submission queues to prevent timeouts that might otherwise occur if the NVM controller has slowed its operations (due, for example, to excessive temperatures within the NVM controller) and is thus unable to complete all issued commands within a host timeout interval. In some examples, throttling is achieved by providing the host with an adjusted head pointer set to a value to reduce the depth of the submission queue as observed by the host. Fewer commands are then sent by the host to the NVM controller via the submission queues, reducing the risk of a host timeout. NVMe examples are provided.
Hutchison et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,732,900 B2); teaching a method and apparatus to provide a bounded latency, where a device would report “non-service” of a command at the defined system level timeout or earlier if the device was unable to successfully return the data to the host.
Gupta et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 10,776,013 B2); teaching a computer program product, system, and method for performing workload balancing of tracks in storage areas assigned to processing units. For each processing unit, there is an assignment of a storage area of tracks in the storage to the processing unit, at least one queue having I/O requests to the storage area, and queue usage information indicating a quantity related to the I/O requests in the at least one queue. A determination is made from the queue usage information whether to perform workload balancing for a source processing unit having at least one source queue. A target processing unit is selected in response to determining to perform the workload balancing for the source processing unit. Tracks in a source storage area assigned to the source processing unit are moved to a target storage area assigned to the target processing unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114