DETAIL ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The instant application having application No. 19/022,711 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there are 3 independent claim and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
3. As required by M.P.E.P. 2001.06(b) and 37 C.F.R. 1.98(d), since the instant application has been identified as a continuation application of an earlier filed application and is relied upon for an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, the examiner has reviewed the prior art cited in the earlier related application as required by M.P.E.P. 707.05 and 904 and as stated in M.P.E.P. 2001.06(b), no separate citation of the same prior art need be made by the applicants in the instant application.
IFORMATION CONCENING IDS:
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/23/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner. A copy (copies) of PTOL-1449s initialed and signed by the examiner is/are attached to the instant office action.
IFORMATION CONCENING DRAWING:
5. Application’s drawing submitted 01/11/2025 is acceptable for examination purposes.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER:
6. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Breitgand et al. (US 2006/0293777 A1) teaches “…setting a service-level objective (SLO) and if access time causes a violation of the SLO an alert is triggered…” (par. 0058).
Cheon et al. (US 2008/0104309 A1) teaches “…determining writing pattern of data allocating one of SLC or MLC in accordance with writing patten of data ” (par. 0005).
Danilak (US 2009/0132778 A1) teaches “…writing to different type of data based on frequency…” (claim 1).
Statutory Double Patenting:
7. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 28-31, 33-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 7-17 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,282,686 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
There is minor change referring to storage in the patent and the instant application. Claims of the patent refers to storage as “storage drive(s)” while claims of the instant application refers to storage as “storage device(s)”. However, it is common in the industry to refer to storage drive as a storage device (see also par. [0047] of instant specification that recites “…storage drives 171A-F (also referred to as “storage devices” herein)…”
Claims 28-31, 33-37, and 39-40 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 7-17 of Application No. 18/180,951, now US Patent No. 12,282,686 B2. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Non-statutory Double Patenting:
8. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-37, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,686 B2 (hereinafter “the patent”).
10. Claims of instant application are compared with claims of the patent in the table below.
US Patent 12,282,686 B2
US Application 19/022,711
1. A storage system comprising:
a plurality of storage drives; and
a storage controller operatively coupled to the plurality of storage drives,
the storage controller comprising a processing device, the processing device to:
select a first set of dies of a plurality of dies of a storage drive of the plurality of storage drives for performance of low latency access operations;
perform the low latency access operations using the first set of dies;
determine whether a triggering event has occurred during the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies; and in response to the determination,
select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage drive for the performance of low latency access operations
upon determining that the triggering event has occurred.
21. A storage system comprising:
a plurality of storage devices; and
a storage controller operatively coupled to the plurality of storage devices, the storage controller comprising a processing device, the processing device to:
perform low latency access operations using a first set of dies of a plurality of dies
of a storage device;
based on detection of a triggering event,
select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage device for the performance of low latency access operations.
2. The storage system of claim 1,
wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
22. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
3. The storage system of claim 1,
wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
23. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
4. The storage system of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of dies comprise zones of a zoned storage drive.
24. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the plurality of dies comprise zones of a zoned storage device.
25. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the low latency access operations comprise access operations associated with data that was programmed using a low latency programming mode.
5. The storage system of claim 1,
wherein the low latency access operations comprise single-level cell (SLC) access operations.
26. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the low latency access operations comprise single-level cell (SLC) access operations.
6. The storage system of claim 1,
wherein the storage system comprises a plurality of authorities that control the performance of access operations on the plurality of storage drives.
27. The storage system of claim 21, wherein the storage system comprises a plurality of authorities that control the performance of access operations on the plurality of storage devices.
7. A method comprising:
select a first set of dies of a plurality of dies of a storage drive of a plurality of storage drives for performance of low latency access operations;
performing the low latency access operations on the first set of dies; determine whether a triggering event has occurred during the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies; and
in response to the determination, select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage drive for the performance of low latency access operations upon determining that the triggering event has occurred.
28. A method comprising:
select a first set of dies of a plurality of dies of a storage device of a plurality of storage devices for performance of low latency access operations;
performing the low latency access operations on the first set of dies; determine whether a triggering event has occurred during the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies; and
in response to the determination, select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage device for the performance of low latency access operations upon determining that the triggering event has occurred.
8. The method of claim 7,
wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
29. The method of claim 28,
wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
9. The method of claim 7,
wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
30. The method of claim 28,
wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
10. The method of claim 7,
wherein the plurality of dies comprise zones of a zoned storage drive.
31. The method of claim 28,
wherein the plurality of dies comprise zones of a zoned storage device.
32. The method of claim 31, wherein the low latency access operations comprise access operations associated with data that was programmed using a low latency programming mode.
11. The method of claim 7,
wherein the low latency access operations comprise single-level cell (SLC) access operations.
33. The method of claim 28,
wherein the low latency access operations comprise single-level cell (SLC) access operations.
12. The method of claim 7,
wherein the storage drive comprises a plurality of authorities that control the performance of access operations on the plurality of storage drives.
34. The method of claim 28,
wherein the storage device comprises a plurality of authorities that control the performance of access operations on the plurality of storage devices.
13. The method of claim 7
wherein other access operations are performed by remaining dies of the plurality of dies of the storage drive.
35. The method of claim 28
wherein other access operations are performed by remaining dies of the plurality of dies of the storage device.
14. The method of claim 7
wherein the triggering event comprises a delay in the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies.
36. The method of claim 28
wherein the triggering event comprises a delay in the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies.
15. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed, cause a processing device of a storage controller to: select a first set of dies of a plurality of dies of a storage drive of a plurality of storage drives for performance of low latency access operations;
perform the low latency access operations using the first set of dies;
determine whether a triggering event has occurred during the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies; and
in response to the determination, select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage drive for the performance of low latency access operations upon determining that the triggering event has occurred.
37. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, which when executed, cause a processing device of a storage controller to: select a first set of dies of a plurality of dies of a storage device of a plurality of storage devices for performance of low latency access operations;
perform the low latency access operations using the first set of dies;
determine whether a triggering event has occurred during the performance of the low latency access operations by the first set of dies; and
in response to the determination, select a second set of dies of the plurality of dies of the storage device for the performance of low latency access operations upon determining that the triggering event has occurred.
38. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 37, wherein the low latency access operations comprise access operations associated with data that was programmed using a low latency programming mode
16. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15,
wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
39. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 37,
wherein the triggering event comprises a storage capacity of the first set of dies satisfying a capacity threshold.
17. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 15,
wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
40. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 37,
wherein the triggering event comprises an amount of time elapsing since the selection of the first set of dies satisfying a time threshold.
Claims 25, 32, and 38 are rejected under non-statutory double patent rejection as being not patentable over claims of the patent in view of Linnell “Linnell” (US 8,239,617 B1).
11. The claims of the patent does not teach while Linnell discloses:
“wherein the low latency access operations comprise access operations associated with data that was programmed using a low latency programming mode” (e.g., col. 6, line 63 to col. 7, line 12) data that is known to be frequently-accessed data with very low latency requirements will be written to SLC flash drive.
Disclosures by the patent and Linnel are analogous because they are in the same field of endeavor and/or solving a similar or common problem.
It would have been obvious to a person of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the patent to write or program low latency data into an SLC device disclosed by Linnel.
The motivation for including the SLC storage is that SLC provides better performance include access time or latency (e.g., See summary of Linnel invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine teaching of Linnel with the patent to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPENDENCES:
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHEM FARROKH whose telephone number is (571)272-4193. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
13. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. 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.
14. 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 htto://pair-direct.uspto.gov. For questions regarding access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786- 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASHEM FARROKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138