DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed December 11, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5, is objected to because of the following informalities: Duplicate word ("that that").
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Duplicate language in the operation-type lists ("a first/second write operation, or a first/second write operation). This appears to be an obvious copy-paste error. The last operation should be "erase operation" based on the specification and the pattern used elsewhere and will be interpreted as such for purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "and the third operation". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only recites a first operation on a first die and a second operation on a second die. The reference to "the third operation" without any antecedent basis renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what "the third operation" refers to and how it relates to the other operations already recited in claim 1.
No rejection under 35 U.S.C §§ 102 or 103 is being made at this time due to the above indefiniteness rejection.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites: “A storage device comprising: a first die; a second die; and a controller to: initiate a first operation on the first die of the storage device; detect a request to perform a second operation on the second die of the storage device, the first die being different than the second die; determine a power consumption of the storage device; determine a priority associated with the second operation; and suspend the first operation based on: detecting the request, the power consumption, and the priority.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of a “first die,” a “second die,” and a “controller” (described in the specification as one or more of an ASIC or firmware) are recited at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions (initiating, detecting, determining, and suspending operations) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field of solid-state drive controllers. The specification itself acknowledges that power consumption data, die-level operations, and suspension/resumption of operations on non-volatile memory devices (e.g., NAND) were already known and used in existing “power token based power management technique[s]” and internal management algorithms (See paragraphs [0012], [0045], [0052] – [0055]). Determining a priority and conditioning suspension on that priority and on power consumption is merely the abstract idea itself (rules-based resource allocation and scheduling of operations). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer or storage device itself, do not apply the exception with a particular machine in a non-generic way, do not effect a transformation of an article to a different state or thing in a non-conventional manner, and do not add unconventional elements or a non-conventional arrangement. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, the elements of claim 1 amount to no more than a generic controller on conventional multi-die non-volatile memory hardware applying the abstract rules for prioritizing and suspending operations based on power consumption and priority. The specification confirms that the underlying components and operations (power consumption data storage and calculation, die operations, and suspend/resume commands) are conventional. See paragraphs [0024], [0032]–[0033], [0047]–[0051]. This is insufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Dependent claims 2–7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. These claims merely further limit the abstract idea itself (e.g., claim 5 requires determining that the priority of the second operation exceeds the priority of the first operation; claim 3 requires resuming the first operation after the second is completed) or recite conventional features (e.g., claim 2: dies on different or the same storage medium; claim 7: receiving the request from a host computing device; claim 14: the operations being read, write, or erase operations). These limitations do not change the character of the claim as being directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent Claim 8 recites: “A method comprising: initiating a first operation on a first die of a non-volatile memory device; detecting a request to perform a second operation on a second die of the non-volatile memory device, the first die being different than the second die; and suspending the first operation based on detecting the request.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements (performing the method on “a first die of a non-volatile memory device” and “a second die of the non-volatile memory device”) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than applying the abstract idea (event-driven suspension of operations) on generic, conventional hardware. The claim is even broader than claim 1 because it omits any explicit requirement for determining power consumption or priority. The specification confirms that suspension of operations on dies in response to a request is conventional. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in computer functionality, apply the exception with a particular machine, effect a non-conventional transformation, or add unconventional elements.
The claim does not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ordered combination is merely the abstract idea implemented on conventional non-volatile memory device hardware using routine operations. Dependent claims 9–14 do not cure this deficiency for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2–7.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claim 15 recites a computer program product comprising program instructions that perform the identical abstract steps recited in claim 1 (initiate first operation, detect request for second operation on a different die, determine power consumption, determine priority, and suspend the first operation based on the request, power consumption, and priority). Storing these abstract instructions on “one or more computer readable storage media” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The additional element of generic storage media is conventional and performs no function other than to store the abstract idea. Dependent claims 16–20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more for the reasons set forth above.
This rejection is made in view of the Alice/Mayo framework as set forth in MPEP § 2106. The claims of the instant application are directed to an abstract idea (rules-based power management, prioritization, and suspension of operations on a storage device) and do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Applicant is invited to amend the claims to recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more, with clear support in the specification, and to provide arguments explaining how the amended claims satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 1-3, 5, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230350586; "Sharma").
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, claim 15 is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 and contains substantially identical limitations expressed as program instructions on computer readable storage media, except that it does not contain a standalone limitation to determine a priority associated with the second operation.
Jung discloses a 'storage device'/'computer program product' comprising:
a first die; a second die; and a controller to: initiate a first operation on the first die of the storage device (Fig. 1 where it illustrates Die 0 and Die 1 and controller 110 for example. See also para. 22; " data storage device 10 in accordance with an embodiment may include a controller 110 and a storage 120" and see para. 24; "The storage 120 may include a plurality of dies Die 0 to Die n". Also see para 27; "The power manager 20 may be configured to schedule operation times and/or an operation sequence of the plurality of dies Die 0 to Die n");
detect a request to perform a second operation on the second die of the storage device, the first die being different than the second die (para 32; "the power manager 20 is notified of the temporary suspension of the specific operation by at least one of the dies Die 0 to Die n, the power manager 20 may schedule an operation resume time and/or an operation resume sequence. For this later operation, the attributes of the temporarily suspended operation may be taken into account");
determine a power consumption of the storage device (para. 42; " In an embodiment, through a test process, a result of measuring the amount of current which is consumed during an operation of each of the plurality of dies Die 0 to Die n");
determine a priority associated with the second operation (abstr. "a power-management circuit of the data storage device may dynamically route a constrained power supply such that the storage dies corresponding to the higher-priority operations preferentially receive power allocation in the next time interval(s)");
and suspend the first operation based on: detecting the request, the power consumption, (para. 30; "The storage 120 may be configured or preset such that, before entering a specified peak current occurrence period, the operation of each of the dies Die 0 to Die n of the storage 120 is temporarily suspended."),
Jung discloses resuming operations based on the priority of operations but does not explicitly state that the suspension of operations is due to priority.
However, Sharma teaches [and suspend the first operation based on…] and the priority (Fig. 4, steps 408 and 410 in which prioritized operations are allocated power (and thus those that are not prioritized are necessarily suspended).
determine a priority associated with the second operation (abstr. "a power-management circuit of the data storage device may dynamically route a constrained power supply such that the storage dies corresponding to the higher-priority operations preferentially receive power allocation in the next time interval(s)".);
Jung and Sharma are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which dies temporarily suspend operations before peak power periods and the controller schedules resumption based on power budgets, per-die current consumption, and operation attributes - to further incorporate the teachings of Sharma’s power management circuit that preferentially allocates power to dies corresponding to higher-priority operation within a constrained power budget, with non-prioritized dies having operations effectively suspended by withholding power. Doing so would predictably allow the system to prioritize higher-priority operations while staying within the overall power budget.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, claim 18 is the computer program product embodiment of claim 2 and contains substantially identical limitations expressed as program instructions on computer readable storage media. Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein the first die is included on a first storage medium, and wherein the second die is included on a second storage medium (Fig. 1 where it illustrates Die 0 and Die 1 of storage 120 for example).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, claim 17 is the computer program product embodiment of claim 2 and contains substantially identical limitations expressed as program instructions on computer readable storage media. Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein the controller is to: initiate the second operation on the second die after suspending the first operation; complete the second operation on the second die; and resume the first operation on the first die after completing the second operation on the second die (abstr. "a controller configured to schedule an operation resume time as the storage temporarily suspends the operation, and transmit an operation resume signal to the storage according to a result of the scheduling." See also para. 25; "During a parallel processing or interleaving operation for the plurality of dies Die 0 to Die n constituting the storage 120, there is a need to manage power consumption of each or entirety of the plurality of dies Die 0 to Die n." It is noted that Jung describes operations on specific individual dies, where the controller controls when operations on those particular dies are suspended and when they can proceed. By managing the power budget across the dies, Jung's controller is allowing selected operations on specific dies to continue and reach completion without violating power constraints.).
Regarding claim 5, Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claim 1.
As applied, Sharma further discloses wherein the priority is a first priority, and wherein, to suspend the first operation, the controller is to: determine that the first priority exceeds a second priority associated with the first operation (para. 6; "flash translation layer is configured to maintain a queue of pending operations for the first plurality of dies and is further configured to award, in a time interval, a higher priority to a first subset of the pending operations than to a different second subset of the pending operations);
While Sharma supplies the reason and decision criterion for priority determination to invoke a mechanism, it is silent with respect to that mechanism explicitly being active suspension of an operation.
However, as applied, Jung further discloses and suspend the first operation based on: detecting the request, determining that the power consumption of the storage device prevents the second operation from being performed with the first operation (para. 30; "The storage 120 may be configured or preset such that, before entering a specified peak current occurrence period, the operation of each of the dies Die 0 to Die n of the storage 120 is temporarily suspended."),
and determining that that the first priority exceeds the second priority (As noted above, Jung's controller would use the priority comparison taught by Sharma as the basis for deciding to suspend the lower-priority operation. This is a predictable use of Sharma's priority and power allocation teachings in conjunction with Jung's existing suspension capability.
Regarding claim 19, Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claim 15.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein the program instructions comprise: program instructions to determine that the power consumption of the storage device prevents the second operation from being performed with the first operation (para. 30; "The storage 120 may be configured or preset such that, before entering a specified peak current occurrence period, the operation of each of the dies Die 0 to Die n of the storage 120 is temporarily suspended." It is noted that the controller and power manager manage operations across the plurality of dies while maintaining power consumption within a power budget. This supports program instructions that determine when power conditions prevent one operation from proceeding together with another.);
and program instructions to suspend the first operation based on: detecting the request, and determining that the power consumption of the storage device prevents the second operation from being performed with the first operation (abstr. "A data storage device may include a storage configured to temporarily suspend an operation thereof at a specified time; and a controller configured to schedule an operation resume time as the storage temporarily suspends the operation, and transmit an operation resume signal to the storage according to a result of the scheduling."
Regarding claim 20, Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claim 15.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein the first operation comprises a first read operation, a first write operation, or a first write operation, and wherein the second operation comprises a second read operation, a second write operation, or a second write operation (Fig. 12 where it illustrates a well-understood, routine and conventional memory device structure capable of all performing memory operations. See also para 142; "the control logic 360 may control operations of the nonvolatile memory device 300 such as read, write and erase operations of the nonvolatile memory device 300. As noted in the objection for claim 20 above, the duplicate 'first/second write operation' phrase is taken to mean 'first/second erase operation').
Claims 8-9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Wu et al. ("Reducing SSD access latency via NAND flash program and erase suspension"; "Wu).
Regarding independent claim 8, Jung discloses a method comprising:
initiating a first operation on a first die of a non-volatile memory device (para. 8; "means for maintaining a queue of pending operations for a first plurality of dies of the data storage device");
Jung discloses multi-operations on a multi-die device but is silent with respect to the specific reason for suspension being to service a pending second operation.
However, Wu teaches detecting a request to perform a second operation on a second die of the non-volatile memory device, the first die being different than the second die; and suspending the first operation based on detecting the request (abstr. "we propose in this paper a low-overhead P/E suspension scheme, which suspends the on-going P/E to service pending reads and resumes the suspended P/E afterwards. Having reads enjoy the highest priority,". Thus, Wu contemplates receiving pending read requests while a P/E operation is ongoing (detecting, then suspending)).
Jung and Wu are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which the controller causes temporary suspension of operations on the die, with the P/E suspension scheme taught by Wu. The combination would have predictably enabled the controller to suspend a first operation on one die upon detecting a request for a second operation on a different die.
Regarding claim 9, Jung and Wu disclose the limitations of claim 8.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein suspending the first operation comprises: suspending the first operation based on detecting the request and based on a power limitation of the non-volatile memory device (para. 9; "a controller configured to control each of the data storage elements to resume the corresponding suspended operation so as to maintain power consumption of the data storage elements within a power consumption budget, wherein each of the data storage elements notifies the controller of the corresponding suspended operation.")
Regarding claim 13, Jung and Wu disclose the limitations of claim 8.
As applied, Jung further discloses comprising: initiating the second operation on the second die after suspending the first operation (para. 30; "the storage 120 may be configured or preset such that, before entering a specified peak current occurrence period, the operation of each of the dies Die 0 to Die n of the storage 120 is temporarily suspended". It is noted that the controller manages suspension of operations on specific dies and determines when other operations on the dies can proceed.);
completing the second operation on the second die; and resuming the first operation on the first die after completing the second operation on the second die (para. 6; "a controller configured to schedule an operation resume time as the storage temporarily suspends the operation, and transmit an operation resume signal to the storage according to a result of the scheduling." It is noted that the controller controls the sequencing of operations across the dies. Once an operation on a specific die is allowed to proceed (i.e., it is not under suspension), it is necessarily permitted to continue until completion within the power and operational constraints managed by the controller)
Regarding claim 14, Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claim 8.
As applied, Jung further discloses wherein the first operation comprises a first read operation, a first write operation, or a first write operation, and wherein the second operation comprises a second read operation, a second write operation, or a second write operation (Fig. 12 where it illustrates a well-understood, routine and conventional memory device structure capable of all performing memory operations. See also para 142; "the control logic 360 may control operations of the nonvolatile memory device 300 such as read, write and erase operations of the nonvolatile memory device 300. As noted in the objection for claim 20 above, the duplicate 'first/second write operation' phrase is taken to mean 'first/second erase operation').
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Wu et al. ("Reducing SSD access latency via NAND flash program and erase suspension"; "Wu"), and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230350586; "Sharma").
Regarding claim 10, Jung and Wu disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Jung and Wu combined are silent with respect to explicit power allocations for various operations.
However, Sharma teaches wherein suspending the first operation comprises: suspending the first operation based on detecting the request and based on a power allocated to operations performed on the non-volatile memory device (abstr. "a power-management circuit of the data storage device may dynamically route a constrained power supply such that the storage dies corresponding to the higher-priority operations preferentially receive power allocation in the next time interval(s).").
Jung, Wu and Sharma are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which the controller causes temporary suspension of operations on the die, with the suspension of ongoing operations to service pending requests taught by Wu, combined with Sharma's teaching of a power-management circuit that dynamically allocates power to operations across the storage dies. This combination would have predictably enabled a method in which the first operation is suspended based on detecting a request and based on power allocated to operations performed on the non-volatile memory device.
Regarding claim 11, Jung and Wu disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Jung and Wu combined are silent with respect to explicit power allocations for various operations.
However, Sharma teaches wherein suspending the first operation comprises:
determining that power allocated to operations performed on the non-volatile memory device does not support the first operation being performed along with the second operation (abstr. "a power-management circuit of the data storage device may dynamically route a constrained power supply such that the storage dies corresponding to the higher-priority operations preferentially receive power allocation in the next time interval(s)." It is noted that Sharma's determination of power allocated to operations would necessarily be insufficient for a combination of operations.);
and suspending the first operation based on determining that the power does not support the first operation being performed along with the second operation (para. 32; "When a particular storage die 170n does not have power supply 126 connected thereto in a time interval, the queued operations (if any) on that die are not scheduled for execution in that time interval and remain in queue".)
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230350586; "Sharma"), and further in view of Xu (CN 116069149).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, claim 16 is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 and contains substantially identical limitations expressed as program instructions on computer readable storage media.
Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 15 respectively.
Jung and Sharma contemplate interaction with a host but do not explicitly disclose triggering behavior by actively monitoring the host.
However, Xu teaches wherein, to detect the request, the controller is to:
receive the request from a host computing device associated with the storage device (para. [n0037] "First, the SSD controller monitors whether a new host command has been received in the SSD cache;" [n0038] "Secondly, when the SSD cache detects that a new host command has been received, the SSD controller increases its operating frequency".)
Jung, Sharma and Xu are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which the controller manages operations across multiple dies – to further incorporate Sharma's teaching of priority and power management across storage dies, combined with Xu's teaching of an SSD controller that monitors and responds to host commands by adjusting its operating state. Doing so would have predictably enabled a storage device (or computer program product) in which the controller (or program instructions) detects a request by receiving it from a host computing device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Sharma et al. (US 20230350586; "Sharma"), and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20230195312; "Yu")
Regarding claim 6, Jung and Sharma disclose the limitations of claim 1.
Jung and Sharma disclose power management incorporating the suspension of operations but are silent with respect to explicitly performing a post-suspension power budget check and then reserving a current budget for the second operation.
However, Yu teaches wherein the controller is to: determine that sufficient power has been allocated to perform the second operation after suspending the first operation (Fig. 8. See also para. 93 "FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of a method 800 to implement peak power management during suspend status in a memory device" and see para. 97; " the processing logic can cause the die to be placed in a suspended state to suspend execution of the first media access operation with a reserved current budget");
and initiate the second operation on the second die based on determining that sufficient power has been allocated to perform the second operation (Fig. 8, step 840 where it illustrates a second operation has been initiated after suspension of the first operation in the power management scheme).
Jung, Sharma and Yu are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which the controller manages operations across multiple dies – to further incorporate Sharma's teaching of priority and power management across storage dies, in combination with Yu's teaching of reserving a current budget for a die while it is in suspended status and applying current budget arbitration logic to determine whether the reserved budget is sufficient before proceeding with additional operations. Doing so would allow the controller to more precisely determine, after suspending the first operation, whether sufficient power has been allocated thereby improving power efficiency and reducing the risk of exceeding power limits during concurrent operations across multiple dies.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20200042238; "Jung") in view of Wu et al. ("Reducing SSD access latency via NAND flash program and erase suspension"; "Wu"), and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20230195312; "Yu")
Regarding claim 12, Jung and Wu disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Jung and Wu disclose power management incorporating the suspension of operations but are silent with respect to explicitly performing a post-suspension power budget check and then reserving a current budget for the second operation.
However, Yu teaches comprising: determining that sufficient power has been allocated to perform the second operation after suspending the first operation (Fig. 8. See also para. 93 "FIG. 8 is a flow diagram of a method 800 to implement peak power management during suspend status in a memory device" and see para. 97; " the processing logic can cause the die to be placed in a suspended state to suspend execution of the first media access operation with a reserved current budget");
and initiating the second operation on the second die based on determining that sufficient power has been allocated to perform the second operation (Fig. 8, step 840 where it illustrates a second operation has been initiated after suspension of the first operation in the power management scheme).
Jung, Wu and Yu are from the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention directed to power management of non-volatile memory devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jung's multi-die storage device – in which the controller manages operations across multiple dies – to further incorporate Wu's teaching of a low-overhead suspension scheme, in combination with Yu's teaching of reserving a current budget for a die while it is in suspended status and applying current budget arbitration logic to determine whether the reserved budget is sufficient before proceeding with additional operations. Doing so would allow the controller to more precisely determine, after suspending the first operation, whether sufficient power has been allocated thereby improving power efficiency and reducing the risk of exceeding power limits during concurrent operations across multiple dies
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Madraswala et al. (US 20220101927) – Suspend/resume technique for NAND memory with tiers based on suspension counters.
Ghalam (US 20140293704) – Multi-die NVM device in which the controller automatically suspends/resumes operations on individual dies to reduce peak power consumption.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James S. Wells whose telephone number is (703)756-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Alexander Sofocleous can be reached at (571)272-0635. 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.
/James S. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2825
/ALEXANDER SOFOCLEOUS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights