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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed has been accepted and the double patenting rejection withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 4/8/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-20 are still pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 1/14/2026.
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 1-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sela (US PGPub 2013/0166818) in view of Kuzmin et al. (US PGPub 2014/0215129, hereafter referred to as Kuzmin) in view of Parry et al. (US PGPub 2023/0051212, hereafter referred to as Parry).
Regarding claim 1, Sela teaches obtain fragmented first addresses of logical block address (LBA) segments of a file, and merge the fragmented first addresses into continuous first addresses of a merged LBA segment of the file (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], describes the defragmentation process which involves taking separated logical addresses of a file (fragmented) and merging then so the logical addresses are continuous (merged LBA segment)), and a storage device for storing a mapping table corresponding to the file (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0002] and [0020], show the storage device and states that the controller/host interface of the storage device can be used to translate addresses meaning that the table or equivalent would need to be present/stored in the storage device so it can use it), and update a mapping relation indicated by the mapping table from an original mapping relation corresponding to the fragmented first addresses to a new mapping relation corresponding to the continuous first addresses (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], as stated previously, the defragmentation operation will update the logical addresses (and thus the mapping relations) of the file so the logical addresses are continuous). Sela does not teach a system, comprising: a host configured to: obtain fragmented first addresses of logical block address (LBA) segments of a file, wherein the storage device is configured to: in response to a first command received from the host, update a mapping relation indicated by the mapping table from an original mapping relation corresponding to the fragmented first addresses to a new mapping relation corresponding to the continuous first addresses, and send an instruction to the host indicating that the mapping relation indicated by the mapping table has been updated.
Kuzmin teaches a system, comprising: a host configured to: obtain fragmented first addresses of segments of a file (Paragraph [0173], states that the garbage collection process can be used for defragmentation. Paragraphs [0136]-[0139], describe the process of host/cooperative controlled garbage collection where the host will request from the memory controller a list of candidates for the procedure), wherein the storage device is configured to: in response to a first command received from the host, update a mapping relation indicated by the mapping table from an original mapping relation corresponding to the fragmented first addresses to a new mapping relation corresponding to the first addresses, and send an instruction to the host indicating that the mapping relation indicated by the mapping table has been updated (Fig. 11A and Paragraphs [0136]-[0139] and [0173], the memory controller in the process will receive from the host the updated locations (targets and sources) for the data that is to be garbage collected and update the tables to reflect the changes. Afterwards the memory controller will send confirmation back to the host). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sela to have the host manage parts of the defragmentation process as taught in Kuzmin so to reduces performance unpredictability and overhead, thereby facilitating integration of solid state drives (SSDs) with other forms of storage (Kuzmin, Abstract). Sela and Kuzmin do not teach and store a merge log recording the new mapping relation between the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file and physical addresses of the file.
Parry teaches storing a merge log recording the new mapping relation between the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file and physical addresses of the file (Paragraph [0077], states that the L2L mapping table can be updated to contain a record (merge log) of an updated mapping of data if it is remapped during defragmentation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sela and Kuzmin to utilize the records of Parry so to enable the memory system to maintain up-to-date mapping between logical and physical address and prolong the lifetime of the memory device, among other benefits (Parry, Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 1. Sela further teaches wherein the original mapping relation corresponding to the fragmented first addresses comprises the mapping relation between the fragmented first addresses and second addresses of the file, and the new mapping relation corresponding to the continuous first addresses comprises the mapping relation between the continuous first addresses and the second addresses of the file (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the defragmentation process takes logical addresses of a file that are random/separate and makes them continuous). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 2. Sela further teaches wherein the first addresses comprise logic addresses, and the second addresses comprise physical addresses (Paragraph [0020], states the logical addresses have corresponding physical addresses). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 3. Sela further teaches wherein the storage device further comprises: a memory device, and a memory controller coupled to the memory device and the host (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0020], shows the storage device which includes a memory and a controller). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 4. Sela further teaches wherein the memory controller further comprises an interface configured to receive the first command from the host and send the instruction to the host (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0020], shows the storage device that includes a host interface with the controller that is used to facilitate communication with the host). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 4. Kuzmin further teaches wherein the memory controller further comprises a controller memory configured to store the mapping table corresponding to the file, and the mapping table comprises a logical-to-physical (L2P) address mapping table (Paragraphs [0066]-[0068], states the controller can have a metadata storage and some of the metadata that can be used is L2P and P2L mapping tables). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 1. Kuzmin further teaches wherein the host obtains the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file before sending the first command (Paragraphs [0031]-[0034], states that the host will make a decision on the candidates and updated locations before sending the command to the memory controller). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 1. Kuzmin further teaches wherein in response to a second command, the host merges the fragmented first addresses into the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file (Fig. 11A and Paragraphs [0136]-[0139], the memory controller can detect a threshold condition and send a command to the host that garbage collection needs to be performed which can trigger the host to act. Paragraph [0173], as stated previously in claim 1, the garbage collection process can be used for defragmentation). The combination of and reason for combining are the same as those given in claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-15, claims 13-15 are the storage device claims associated with claims 1, 4, 8 (claim 13), 2 (claim 14), and 3 (claim 15). Since Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claims 1-4 and 8 and Kuzmin further teaches a controller processor coupled to the controller memory (Fig. 2, processor 202), they also teach all the limitations to claims 13-15; therefore the rejections to claims 1-4 and 8 also apply to claims 13-15.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, claims 18 and 19 are the method claims associated with claims 1 and 2. Since Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claims 1 and 2, they also teach all the limitations of claims 18 and 19; therefore the rejections to claims 1 and 2 also apply to claims 18 and 19.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the method claim associated with claim 1. Since Sela and Kuzmin teach all the limitations to claim 1, they also teach all the limitations to claim 20; therefore the rejection to claim 1 also applies to claim 20.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita (US PGPub 2019/0065395).
Regarding claim 11, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 1. Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry do not teach wherein the host is further configured to update an index node of the file by pointing to a new LBA segment with the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file after receiving the instruction.
Fujita teaches wherein the host is further configured to update an index node of the file by pointing to a new LBA segment with the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file after receiving the instruction (Paragraphs [0039]-[0041], describe the process of defragmentation which involves updating an inode ( index node) to reflect the new addresses). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry to use the inode mapping as taught in Fujita so to prevent an increase in the write amplification factor (WAF) due to the defragmentation (Fujita, Paragraph [0021]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palmer et al. (US PGPub 2021/0064526, hereafter referred to as Palmer).
Regarding claim 12, Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry teach all the limitations to claim 1. Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry do not explicitly teach wherein the storage device comprises a universal flash storage (UFS) device.
Palmer teaches wherein the storage device comprises a universal flash storage (UFS) device (Paragraphs [0019] and [0044], show the device can be a UFS device). Since both Sela/Kuzmin/Parry and Palmer teach the use of flash devices it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the flash device of Sela, Kuzmin, and Parry with the UFS device of Palmer to obtain the predictable result of wherein the storage device comprises a universal flash storage (UFS) device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 16, 17 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the applicant amended the claims with the limitation “…store a merge log recording the new mapping relation between the continuous first addresses of the merged LBA segment of the file and physical addresses of the file” to overcome the prior rejections set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/14/2026. To address this, new reference Parry was incorporated into the rejection to help teach the amended limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights