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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by this Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by this Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, line 3, “the NVM” is lack sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 1-2 of the instant claim teaches “a plurality of NVM storage locations”, but it is unclear which storage device is “the NVM”.
Per claim 6, line 2, “the determined operation parameter” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that the claim should be dependent on claim 4 as opposed to claim 2, since claim 4 teaches “an operation parameter”. For examining purposes, the instant claim is assumed to be dependent on claim 4.
Per claim 8, line 1, “the storage location having the highest ranking” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It would be more appropriate to change the limitation to “a storage location having a highest ranking”. On lines 1-2, “the storage location having the smallest value of the weighted function” is indefinite as claim 7 teaches there is a weighted function for each of a plurality of NVM storage locations, implying multiple weight functions. It is unclear which one is “the weighted function”. Furthermore, “the smallest value” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and it would be more appropriate to change it to “a smallest value”. Lastly, “the storage location having the smallest value” has insufficient antecedent basis and it would be more appropriate to change “the storage location” to “a storage location”.
Per claim 9, lines 1-2, “the storage location having the smallest value of the weighted function” is indefinite for all the same reasons set forth above in claim 8.
Per claim 10, line 2, “the storage location having the highest ranking” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that the claim should be dependent on claim 8 as opposed to claim 6, since claim 8 teaches “the storage location having the highest ranking”. For examining purposes, the instant claim is assumed to be dependent on claim 8.
All dependent claims are rejected as inheriting the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from. Appropriate correction is required.
Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 22 of U.S. Patent 12,175,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims of the instant application are anticipated by the said claims of U.S. Patent 12,175,081. The side-by-side comparison below of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 3 of U.S. Patent 12,175,081 shows limitation by limitation matching between the conflicting claims (bold parts are the differences).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,175,081
1. A method for managing a storage system comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations, the method comprising:
parsing a command to access the NVM to identify an affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
executing a rule associated with the affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
and
optimizing execution of the command based on the executed rule, wherein optimizing includes one of identifying a new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations or throttling execution of the command.
1. A method for processing a command within a storage system comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations, each of the plurality of NVM storage locations having a respective at least one operation parameter associated therewith, the method comprising:
ranking each of the plurality of NVM storage locations based on a current value of the respective at least one operation parameter and a threshold value of the respective at least one operation parameter, and
executing the command to access an NVM storage location of the plurality of NVM storage locations that meets a predetermined ranking criteria among the rankings of the plurality of NVM storage locations (note this executing step anticipates the instant application’s parsing step, while the ranking anticipates the instant application’s step of executing a rule).
2. The method of claim 1, where the predetermined ranking criteria corresponds to a highest ranking among the rankings of the plurality of NVM storage locations.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein executing the command comprises, when the current value of the respective at least one operation parameter exceeds the threshold value of
the respective at least one operation parameter, throttling the command to the storage location having the highest ranking.
Claims 2, 4 and 6 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claim 3 of patent 12,175,081. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claim 22 of patent 12,175,081. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 11 of U.S. Patent 11,733,868. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims of the instant application are anticipated by the said claims of U.S. Patent 11,733,868. The side-by-side comparison below of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,733,868 shows limitation by limitation matching between the conflicting claims (bold parts are the differences).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,733,868
1. A method for managing a storage system comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations, the method comprising:
parsing a command to access the NVM to identify an affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
executing a rule associated with the affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
and
optimizing execution of the command based on the executed rule, wherein optimizing includes one of identifying a new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations or throttling execution of the command.
1. A method for dynamically optimizing processing of a command within a storage system, comprising:
identifying a plurality of non-volatile memory storage locations of the storage system that have at least one operation parameter associated with the plurality of non-volatile memory storage locations;
for each identified plurality of non-volatile memory storage locations, determining whether a value of the at least one operation parameter exceeds a predetermined threshold value, wherein the value is representative of operation effects of the storage system on a corresponding storage location of the identified plurality of nonvolatile memory storage locations (this anticipates the step of executing a rule in the instant application);
during operation of the storage system, throttling execution of the command to access a storage location of the identified plurality of non-volatile memory storage
locations (this anticipates the parsing step of the instant application) that has the value determined to exceed the predetermined threshold value by a throttle amount determined to mitigate an effect of the value exceeding the predetermined threshold value (this anticipates the instant application’s step of optimizing execution by throttling); and
ranking the non-volatile memory storage locations having a value of the at least one operation parameter that exceeds the predetermined threshold value.
Claims 2, 4 and 6 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claim 1 of patent 11,733,868. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 7 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 5 of patent 11,733,868. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are similarly anticipated by claim 22 of patent 11,733,868. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 11-12, and 14-16 of U.S. Patent 11,099,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims of the instant application are anticipated by the said claims of U.S. Patent 11,099,736. The side-by-side comparison below of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 11,099,736 shows limitation by limitation matching between the conflicting claims (bold parts are the differences).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,099,736
1. A method for managing a storage system comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations, the method comprising:
parsing a command to access the NVM to identify an affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
executing a rule associated with the affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
and
optimizing execution of the command based on the executed rule, wherein optimizing includes one of identifying a new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations or throttling execution of the command.
1. A method for dynamically optimizing processing of a command within a storage system, comprising:
receiving a command to access a first nonvolatile memory storage location of a plurality of nonvolatile memory storage locations (this anticipates the parsing step in the instant application);
determining that one or more internal operation parameters of the first nonvolatile memory storage location does not satisfy one or more predetermined internal operation criteria for the first nonvolatile memory storage location (this anticipates the instant application’s step of executing a rule); and
in response to the determination, setting a time of execution of the command to access the first nonvolatile memory storage location such that the one or more internal operation parameters of the first nonvolatile memory storage location will satisfy the one or more
predetermined internal operation criteria upon execution of the command (this anticipates the instant application’s step of optimizing command execution by throttling).
Claims 2, 12 and 15 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 1 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 1-2 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 12 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 4 and 17 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 11 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 4 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 14 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 6 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 15 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 10 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 16 of patent 11,988,736. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 12-13, 15 and 17 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 10-11 and 17 of U.S. Patent 10,331,352. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims of the instant application are anticipated by the said claims of U.S. Patent 10,331,352. The side-by-side comparison below of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,331,352 shows limitation by limitation matching between the conflicting claims (bold parts are the differences).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 10,331,352
1. A method for managing a storage system comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations, the method comprising:
parsing a command to access the NVM to identify an affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
executing a rule associated with the affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations;
and
optimizing execution of the command based on the executed rule, wherein optimizing includes one of identifying a new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations or throttling execution of the command.
1. A method for dynamically optimizing processing of a command within a storage system, comprising:
monitoring one or more internal operation parameters for each of a plurality of nonvolatile memory storage locations of the storage system;
receiving a command to access a first nonvolatile memory storage location of the plurality of nonvolatile memory storage locations (this anticipates the parsing step in the instant application);
comparing the one or more internal operation parameters of the first nonvolatile memory storage location to predetermined internal operation criteria for the first nonvolatile memory storage location (this anticipates the instant application’s step of executing a rule); and
in a manner to mitigate an effect of the one or more internal operation parameters failing to satisfy the predetermined internal operation criteria, deferring execution of the command to access the first storage location until the one or more internal operation parameters satisfy the predetermined internal operation criteria, or executing the command to access a second nonvolatile memory storage location instead of the first storage location (this anticipates the instant application’s step of optimizing command execution by identifying a new storage location or throttling).
Claims 2, 4 and 12 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 1 of patent 10,331,352. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 15 and 17 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 7 of patent 10,331,352. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 5 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 10 of patent 10,331,352. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claim 6 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 11 of patent 10,331,352. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
Claims 13 of the instant application is similarly anticipated by claim 17 of patent 10,331,352. The mapping of the claims should be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art and are omitted for the sake of brevity.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-13, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Song [Patent No.: US 9,959,936 B1] (hereinafter “Song”).
Independent Claims:
Per claim 1, Song teaches:
A method for managing a storage system (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 11-28, computing device 102, also see Fig. 10 and col. 10, lines 38-67 for SoC 1000) comprising a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 34-54 for non-volatile memory 114 including SSD 118, also see col. 3, lines 37-40, “These memories, individually or in combination, may store data”), the method comprising:
parsing a command to access the NVM to identify an affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations (see col. 6, lines 34-37, temperatures are determined for locations storing the data to be read by the read requests, as such the read commands/requests must be parsed to identify the locations to be read);
executing a rule associated with the affected one of the plurality of NVM storage locations (see col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 45, a rule that directs memory accesses to cooler locations can be executed based on temperature information of the corresponding physical memory locations determined from a heat map); and
optimizing execution of the command based on the executed rule, wherein optimizing includes one of identifying a new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations (see col. 7, lines 38-45, based on the heat map values, memory accesses are redirected to cooler locations) or throttling execution of the command (see col. 7, lines 38-45, the accesses are delayed to allow the requested locations to cool).
Per claim 12, Song teaches:
A storage system (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 11-28, computing device 102, also see Fig. 10 and col. 10, lines 38-67 for SoC 1000) comprising:
a plurality of non-volatile memory (NVM) storage locations (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 34-54 for non-volatile memory 114 including SSD 118, also see col. 3, lines 37-40, “These memories, individually or in combination, may store data”); and
a controller (see Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 9-15 for access manager 116) configured to perform the same steps of claim 1’s method (see the rejection of claim 1 set forth above).
Dependent Claims:
Per claim 2, Song further teaches executing the rule includes retrieving predetermined criteria associated with the affected storage location (see col. 9, lines 7-9, the criteria for defining “sufficiently low temperature” must be retrieved/obtained by the algorithm shown in Fig. 6 so that a new location with a sufficiently low temperature can be found).
Per claim 15, the claim is the storage system claim corresponding to the method claim 2, as such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 4, Song further teaches executing the rule includes determining an operation parameter associated with the affected storage location and comparing the operation parameter with the predetermined criteria (see col. 9, lines 5-9, the temperature of a location is the claimed operation parameter, and it must be compared with the predetermined criteria that defines a sufficiently low temperature to determine whether the location has a sufficiently low temperature).
Per claim 17, the claim is the storage system claim corresponding to the method claim 4, as such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 5, Song further teaches the operation parameter includes one of an erase count, an amount of current power consumption, an operating temperature and an amount of fragmentation (see col. 9, lines 5-9, the temperatures of physical locations).
Per claim 18, the claim is the storage system claim corresponding to the method claim 5, as such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 6, Song further teaches calculating a ranking of each of the plurality of NVM storage locations based on the determined operation parameter, wherein optimizing execution of the command is based on the calculated ranking (see col. 10, lines 18-24, col. 8, lines 47-48, determine an order of coolest locations to hottest locations).
Per claim 10, Song further teaches identifying the new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations includes identifying the storage location having the highest ranking (see col. 10, lines 21-24, data is read from the coolest locations).
Per claim 11, Song further teaches updating a logical to physical mapping for the storage system based on the identified new one of the plurality of NVM storage locations (col. 8, line 62 to col. 9, line 30, “selected physical address is amped to the logical address”).
Per claim 19, the claim is the storage system claim corresponding to the method claim 11, as such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 13, Song further teaches the plurality of NVM storage locations comprise a solid state drive (SSD) (see col. 3, lines 44-54 for SSD 118).
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 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, and further in view of Bjorling [Open-Channel Solid State Drives].
Per claim 14, Song does not specifically teach the SSD comprises an Open Channel SSD. Bjorling teaches that Open-Channel SSDs offers advantages such as allowing software-defined SSDs that can be managed centrally and shared at fine-granularity, and tailoring to application’s specific needs (see Bjorling, page 6). It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Song’s SSD 118 as Bjorling’s Open-Channel SSD in order to offer the advantages set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the double patenting rejection set forth above are overcome, and by including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 3, Song’s definition of “sufficiently low temperature” for selecting a new location is mapped to the claimed predetermined criteria as shown in the rejection of claim 2. Song fails to teach or suggest the claimed predetermined criteria include at least two of a quality of service level, service legal agreement parameter and a lifetime parameter (the scope and meaning of these terms are described in paragraph [0046] of the instant application’s specification).
Bjorling teaches a Open-Channel SSD storage device but fails to address the deficiencies of Song in claim 3.
Postavilsky et al. [Pub.No.: US 2016/0320971 A1] (hereinafter “Postavilsky”) teaches a similar memory device for performing thermal throttling in order to maintain an operational temperature of a memory device (see paragraph [0024]). However, Postavilsky fails to address the deficiencies of Song in claim 3.
Per claim 16, the claim is the storage system claim corresponding to the method claim 3, as such it is allowable for the same reasons mutatis mutandis.
Per claim 7, Song ranks the physical locations based on their corresponding temperatures, but fails to teach or suggest ranking them using a weighted function based on the determined operation parameter (mapped to Song’s location temperatures) and a threshold value of the operation parameter (mapped to Song’s inferred value of “sufficiently low temperature” for selecting a new location, see the rejection of claim 6 set forth above). Bjorling teaches a Open-Channel SSD storage device but fails to address the deficiencies of Song in claim 7. Postavilsky teaches a similar memory device for performing thermal throttling in order to maintain an operational temperature of a memory device (see paragraph [0024]). However, Postavilsky fails to address the deficiencies of Song in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 9 are dependent on claim 7, as such they are potential allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN X GU whose telephone number is (571)272-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Vo can be reached on 571-272-3642. 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).
/SHAWN X GU/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
11 March 2026