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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant detailed action is in response to Applicant's submission filed on 22 July 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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.
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:
host controller in claim 11, support for which was taken as FIG 1: 108 and [0052] 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.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 5-8,16,21-23 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.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 1-2,4, 9-13,15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bert (US PG PUB No. 2023/0266897) in view of Gilbert (NPL: “sg_rep_zones - send SCSI REPORT ZONES, REALMS or ZONE DOMAINS command”) and Frolikov (US PG PUB No. 2020/0341870).
As per claim 1 a memory system (see Bert FIG 1: 110), comprising:
a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130); and
a memory controller coupled with the memory (see Bert FIG 1: 115), the memory controller comprising a processor, a cache, and a first interface coupled with a host (see FIG 1: 120 and Bert [0032]) and configured to:
control the memory to perform zoned storage by zone, wherein a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”);
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
However Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Gilbert discloses
receive a first command from the host through the first interface comprising mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone is to be returned to the host (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION: “Sends a SCSI REPORT ZONES, REPORT REALMS or REPORT ZONE DOMAINS command to DEVICE and decodes (or simply outputs) the data returned. These commands are found in the ZBC-2 draft standard, revision 12 (zbc2r12.pdf). Only the REPORT ZONES command is defined in the original ZBC standard (INCITS 536-2017) and it is the default for this utility.”); and
[Gilbert discloses sending a configurable command and further discloses specifying specific reporting information with respect to zones.]
send report zone parameter data to the host through the first interface responsive to the first command, wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is to be returned, the report zone parameter data includes the memory mode information, wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information is not to be returned, the report zones parameter does not include the memory mode information (see Gilbert OPTIONS: “where OPT will become the contents of the REPORTING OPTION field in the cdb. The reporting options differ between REPORT ZONES, REPORT ZONE DOMAINS and REPORT REALMS. If the --help option is given twice ( or the equivalent '-hh') a list of available reporting options (as of writing) for each command is output. The default value for REPORT ZONES is 0 which means report a list of all zones. Some other values are 1 for list zones with a zone condition of empty; 2 for list zones with a zone condition of implicitly opened; 3 for list zones with a zone condition of explicitly opened; 4 for list zones with a zone condition of closed; 5 for list zones with a zone condition of full; 6 for list zones with a zone condition of read only; 7 for list zones with a zone condition of offline. Other values are 0x10 for list zones with 'RWP recommended' set to true; 0x11 for list zones with non-sequential write resource active set to true, 0x3e for list zones apart from GAP zones, and 0x3f for list zones with a zone condition of 'not write pointer'.”).
[Gilbert discloses sending zone information only when it is requested.]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Gilbert.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Gilbert for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Giblert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 2, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the memory controller is configured to: responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is to be returned, generate the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
As per claim 4, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
As per claim 9, the memory system of claim 1,
wherein the first command comprises a report zones command (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
As per claim 10, The memory system of claim 1,
wherein the zone is in a zone name space (ZNS) (see Bert [0018]: “zoned namespace”).
As per claim 11, a system (see Bert FIG 1: 100), comprising:
a memory system (see Bert FIG 1; 110) and a host (see Bert FIG 1: 120), wherein:
the memory system comprises:
a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130); and
a memory controller (see Bert FIG 1: 115) coupled with the memory and comprising a processor, a cache, and a first interface coupled to the host (see Bert [0032]), the memory controller configured to:
control the memory to perform zoned storage, wherein a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”);
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
receive a first command from the host through the first interface (see Bert [0017]); and
the host comprises a host controller and a second interface coupled to the first interface (see Bert FIG 1: 122 and [0045]), the host controller configured to:
generate the first command (see Bert FIG 1: 122 and [0045]); and
[Bert discloses the host may generate commands to access the storage device.]
However, Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Gilbert discloses
send report zones parameter data to the host through the first interface responsive to the first command, wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is to be returned, the report zones parameter data includes the memory mode information, and wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is not to be returned, the report zones parameter data does not include the memory mode information (see Gilbert OPTIONS: “where OPT will become the contents of the REPORTING OPTION field in the cdb. The reporting options differ between REPORT ZONES, REPORT ZONE DOMAINS and REPORT REALMS. If the --help option is given twice ( or the equivalent '-hh') a list of available reporting options (as of writing) for each command is output. The default value for REPORT ZONES is 0 which means report a list of all zones. Some other values are 1 for list zones with a zone condition of empty; 2 for list zones with a zone condition of implicitly opened; 3 for list zones with a zone condition of explicitly opened; 4 for list zones with a zone condition of closed; 5 for list zones with a zone condition of full; 6 for list zones with a zone condition of read only; 7 for list zones with a zone condition of offline. Other values are 0x10 for list zones with 'RWP recommended' set to true; 0x11 for list zones with non-sequential write resource active set to true, 0x3e for list zones apart from GAP zones, and 0x3f for list zones with a zone condition of 'not write pointer'.”),
wherein the host comprises a host controller and a second interface coupled to the first interface, the host controller configured to:
send the first command to the memory controller through the second interface, the first command comprising mode return information indicating whether memory mode information of a zone needs to be returned (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION: “Sends a SCSI REPORT ZONES, REPORT REALMS or REPORT ZONE DOMAINS command to DEVICE and decodes (or simply outputs) the data returned. These commands are found in the ZBC-2 draft standard, revision 12 (zbc2r12.pdf). Only the REPORT ZONES command is defined in the original ZBC standard (INCITS 536-2017) and it is the default for this utility.”).
[Gilbert discloses issuing commands to a storage device.]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Gilbert.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Gilbert for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Gilbert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 12, the system of claim 11,
wherein the memory controller is configured to: responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone needs to be returned, generate the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 12,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
As per claim 15, the system of claim 14,
wherein the host controller is configured to: generate a corresponding zone write request according to cold and hot attributes of write data (see Bert [0018]); and
send the write data and the zone write request to the memory controller through the second interface, wherein responsive to the write data being hot data, the zone write request is indicates to write the write data into a zone where the memory mode is the first memory mode, and responsive to the write data being non-hot data, the zone write request indicates to write the write data into a zone where the memory mode is the second memory mode, and the memory controller is configured to write the write data into a storage space of a corresponding zone according to the zone write request (see Bert [0018]: “The host system can transmit instructions to the memory sub-system controller to cause host data to be programmed 10 a specified zone based on particular criteria associated with the data (e.g., 10 workload type, file type, etc.).”)
[A write intensive workload type is taken as a hot data and a read intensive workload type is taken as non-hot data (see Bert [0018]: “For example, the host can cause data associated with write-intensive 10 workloads to be programmed to different erase units than data associated with read-intensive 10 workloads.”).]
As per claim 17, an operation method of a memory system (see Bert FIG 1: 110),
wherein the memory system comprises a memory (see Bert FIG 1: 130) and a memory controller (see Bert FIG 1: 115) coupled with the memory, the memory controller comprising a processor, a cache, and a first interface coupled with a host (see Bert [0032]), the method comprising:
receiving a first command through the first interface (see Bert [0017]),
the zone corresponds to a storage space of the memory, and a storage space of a single zone is configured to support sequential write (see Bert [0017]: “For example, the host system can initiate a data operation (e.g., write, read, erase, etc.) on a memory sub-system.”); and
[Supporting writes is taken as configured to support sequential write.]
However, Bert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Gilbert discloses
sending report zones parameter data through the first interface according to the first command, wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is to be returned, the report zones parameter data includes the memory mode information, data and wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone is not to be returned, the report zones parameter data does not include the memory mode information (see Gilbert OPTIONS: “where OPT will become the contents of the REPORTING OPTION field in the cdb. The reporting options differ between REPORT ZONES, REPORT ZONE DOMAINS and REPORT REALMS. If the --help option is given twice ( or the equivalent '-hh') a list of available reporting options (as of writing) for each command is output. The default value for REPORT ZONES is 0 which means report a list of all zones. Some other values are 1 for list zones with a zone condition of empty; 2 for list zones with a zone condition of implicitly opened; 3 for list zones with a zone condition of explicitly opened; 4 for list zones with a zone condition of closed; 5 for list zones with a zone condition of full; 6 for list zones with a zone condition of read only; 7 for list zones with a zone condition of offline. Other values are 0x10 for list zones with 'RWP recommended' set to true; 0x11 for list zones with non-sequential write resource active set to true, 0x3e for list zones apart from GAP zones, and 0x3f for list zones with a zone condition of 'not write pointer'.”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further comprise a query command returning configuration information as taught by Gilbert.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of more detailed management operations (see Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further implement a query command as taught by Gilbert for the benefit of more detailed management operations to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
However, Bert in view of Gilbert does not expressly disclose but in the same field of endeavor Frolikov discloses
wherein the memory mode information indicates a memory mode of the zone (see Frolikov [0044]: “Different namespaces (131, . . . , 133) can have different SLC mode settings (e.g., 163). For example, the namespace A (131) can be configured to operate in SLC mode; and the namespace B (133) can be configured to operate in a non-SLC mode (e.g., in MLC/TLC/QLC mode).”), the memory mode being:
a first memory mode responsive to each of memory cells corresponding to storage space of the zone being capable of being written with N-bit data (see Frolikov [0044]: “SLC”); and
a second memory mode responsive each of the memory cells corresponding to the storage space of the zone being capable of being written with M-bit data, wherein M and N are integers not less than 1, and wherein M is greater than N (see Frolikov [0044]: “MLC/TLC/QLC”).
It would have been obvious to modify Bert to further acquire a memory mode information as taught by Frolikov.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for the benefit of improving storage management (See Frolikov [0035]: “Alternatively, or in combination, the error recovery manager (113) can configure a namespace such that the memory units in the namespace store data in a mode that has a desired level of reliability in data retrieval. “).
Therefore it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bert to further configure mode as taught by Frolikov for the benefit of improved storage management to arrive at the invention as specified in the claims.
As per claim 18, the operation method according to claim 17,
wherein responsive to the mode return information indicating that the memory mode information of the zone needs to be returned, sending the report zones parameter data including data specified according to the first command comprises: generating the report zones parameter data comprising the memory mode information according to the first command (See Gilbert DESCRITION).
[Gilbert discloses specifying information to be returned, where returning the information is taken to comprise according to the requested information.]
As per claim 19, the operation method of claim 18,
wherein the memory mode information is provided in a zone descriptor in the report zones parameter data (See Gilbert DESCRIPTION).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT
The provisional double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
1st ARGUMENT:
The phrase "mode return information indicating WHETHER memory mode information is to be returned" requires a selective, binary mechanism within the command itself: a flag or field that signals to the memory controller whether to include the memory mode information in the response or to omit it entirely. The amended independent claims make this explicit: when mode return information indicates that memory mode information IS to be returned, the report zones parameter data includes it; when mode return information indicates it is NOT to be returned, the report zones parameter data does not include it. This bidirectional, conditional behavior has no analog in Bensity.
Examiner notes Gilbert is relied upon to teach the argued subject matter. Gilbert discloses sending a command specifying what information is to be returned.
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
Prosecution Insights