CTNF 19/005,207 CTNF 82522 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 12 March 2026. Claims 1-8,14-20 indicated allowable over the prior art of record. The nearest cited prior art, Helmick (US Pat No. 20230325321) does not teach the limitation: in response to receiving, from the host, a response indicating that obtainment of the first address translation information fails, determine to suspend the data read operation until the first address translation information is obtained, and, after the first address translation information is obtained, resume the data read operation, wherein the suspending of the data read operation is determined by the controller due to receiving the response indicating that obtainment of the first address translation information fails. The indicated allowability of claim 9-13 is withdrawn because they were mistakenly indicated allowable for subject matter that is not recited in the claims. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The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. 07-30-05 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. 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. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: controller in claim 1 and 9 support for which was taken as FIG 1:4 and [0039] of the Specification. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick (US PG PUB No. 20230325321) in view of Venkatraman (US Pat No. 20030236962) . As per claim 9, a memory system (see Helmick FIG 2: 102) connectable to a host, comprising: a nonvolatile memory (see Helmick FIG 2: 206); a cache memory (see Helmick FIG 2: 118); a controller electrically connected to the nonvolatile memory and configured to control the nonvolatile memory (see Helmick FIG 2: 202), wherein the controller is configured to: in response to receiving, from the host, a first read command that requests reading first data and specifies a first virtual address in a virtual address space of the host (see Helmick [0034]), execute a data read operation of reading the first data from the nonvolatile memory (see Helmick [0036]); and in response to detecting that first address translation information is not stored in the cache memory, the first address translation information being information for translating the first virtual address to a first physical address for accessing a memory of the host (see Helmick [0037]: “the process of translating the virtual address may block the processing flow of a read/write command”), wherein the suspending of the data read operation is determined by the controller due to detecting that the first address translation information is not stored in the cache memory (see [0038]). However, Helmick does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Venkatraman determine to suspend the data read operation (see Venkatraman [0013]). [Helmick discloses the translation is blocked but does not expressly say suspend.] It would have been obvious to modify Helmick to further suspend execution (i.e., data read operation) in response to a miss as taught by Venkatraman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve page handling efficiency (see Venkatraman [0013]). Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to suspend the data read operation as taught by Venkatraman for the benefit of improving page handling efficiency to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims. As per claim 10, the memory system of claim 9, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to detecting that the first address translation information is not stored in the cache memory, transmit an address translation request to the host, the address translation request being a request for obtaining the first address translation information from the host (see Helmick [0037]). As per claim 11, the memory system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to obtaining the first address translation information from the host, resume the data read operation (see Helmick [0038]). As per claim 12, the memory system of claim 10, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving, from the host, a first response indicating that obtainment of the first address translation information fails, transmit, to the host, a page request for preparing the first address translation information (see Helmick [0038]). As per claim 13, the memory system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to: in response to receiving, from the host, a second response indicating that preparation of the first address translation information is completed, resume the data read operation (see Helmick [0038]) . RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 14-23 AIA The terminal disclaimer filed on 12 March 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Pat No. 12235771 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALPIT PARIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-1173. The examiner can normally be reached MON THROUGH FRI 9:30 TO 6:00. 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, Arpan Savla can be reached on 571-272-1077. 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. /KALPIT PARIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137 KALPIT . PARIKH Primary Examiner Art Unit 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 2 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 3 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 4 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 5 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 6 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 7 Art Unit: 2137 Application/Control Number: 19/005,207 Page 8 Art Unit: 2137
Prosecution Insights