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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted have been considered. The submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.9 /. From PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Specification
The specification is objected to because:
The Cross-Reference to Related Applications section in paragraph [0001] of the specification does not provide the status of U.S. application serial no. 18/623,342 (i.e., now U.S. Patent No. 12,315,576).
Drawings
The formal drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,576.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method, comprising: identifying a plurality of blocks of flash memory for a refresh operation, the identifying executed through a processing device external to a solid state storage device having the flash memory; and sequencing background reads of the identified blocks as the refresh operation without transferring data read through the background read outside of the solid state storage device”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 12,315,576 teaches “A method, comprising: identifying solid state storage within a storage node for a refresh operation, the identifying executed through a computing device external to the solid state storage; writing information associated with the identified solid state storage as directed by the computing device; and cycling background reads of the identified solid state storage, wherein data values read during the background reads are disregarded”..
The examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of the present application is substantially the same of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,576. Therefore, one is just an embodiment of the other or obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 12,315,576 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims of the '576 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,187.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method, comprising: identifying a plurality of blocks of flash memory for a refresh operation, the identifying executed through a processing device external to a solid state storage device having the flash memory; and sequencing background reads of the identified blocks as the refresh operation without transferring data read through the background read outside of the solid state storage device”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 11,955,187 teaches “A method, comprising: identifying solid state storage within a storage node for a refresh operation, the storage node having configured to have a varying number of solid state storage devices, wherein two or more of the solid state storage devices have differing capacities; and cycling background reads, wherein the background reads avoid any transfer of data from the identified solid state storage devices”.
The examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of the present application is substantially the same of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,955,187. Therefore, one is just an embodiment of the other or obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 11,955,187are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims of the '187 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,289,169.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method, comprising: identifying a plurality of blocks of flash memory for a refresh operation, the identifying executed through a processing device external to a solid state storage device having the flash memory; and sequencing background reads of the identified blocks as the refresh operation without transferring data read through the background read outside of the solid state storage device”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 11,289,169 “A method, comprising: identifying one or more blocks of memory for a refresh operation; and cycling background reads to include the identified blocks, wherein the background reads reduce a bit error rate for additional reads for the identified blocks without having the background reads avoid any transfer data values from the identified blocks”.
The examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of the present application is substantially the same of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,289,169. Therefore, one is just an embodiment of the other or obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 11,289,169 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims of the ‘169 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,902.
For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches “A method, comprising: identifying a plurality of blocks of flash memory for a refresh operation, the identifying executed through a processing device external to a solid state storage device having the flash memory; and sequencing background reads of the identified blocks as the refresh operation without transferring data read through the background read outside of the solid state storage device”. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. PN: 10,650,902 “A method for processing blocks of flash memory to decrease raw bit errors from the flash memory, performed by one or more processors, comprising: identifying one or more blocks of the flash memory for a refresh operation; and issuing background reads, in which data values that are read out are disregarded, to the identified blocks as the refresh operation”.
The examiner would like to point out that claim 1 of the present application is substantially the same of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,650,902. Therefore, one is just an embodiment of the other or obvious variations of each other and not patentably distinct.
“A latter patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the latter claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obvious-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Other parallel independent claims of the instant application have corresponding issues with the independent claims of Patent No. 10,650,902 are also rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting for the same rationales discussed above.
Dependent claims are deemed obvious over the dependent claims of the ‘902 patent for the same rationales discussed above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “sequencing background reads of the identified blocks as the refresh operation without transferring data read through the background read outside of the solid-state storage device”. It is unclear as to what is meant by this limitation, is the background reads are not transferring the data read to a host or external system and instead, they are reading the data into the SSD’s internal memory or cache for refresh purposes? And further read through the background read outside of a solid-state memory is ambiguous or contradict to the earlier phrase in which this could meant that the background reads are performed outside the main SSD memory path (e.g., in a separate controller buffer or cache) or the reads are done before the SSD’s memory is accessed, perhaps to prepare for a refresh or to validate data integrity without touching the active memory.
Independent claims 9 and 17 include similar limitations of independent claim 1 andtherefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shim et al. (U.S. PN: 8,908,431) “data are read in response to a read request from the host. For example, between the first and second sub blocks of the selected memory block BLKi_1 of the nonvolatile memory device, the controller 500 reads data from the sub block corresponding to a read request from the host. Exemplarily, the controller 500 reads data from one of the first and second sub blocks of the selected memory block BLKi_1 of the nonvolatile memory device, which corresponds to a read request from the host according to a predetermined or desired operation schedule. For example, the controller 500 reads data from one of the first and second sub blocks of the selected memory block BLKi_1 of the nonvolatile memory device 100 during a background operation such as merge, garbage collection, and refresh operations” (see col. 26, lines 46-67 to col. 27, lines 1-12).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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). 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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights