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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the reply filed 11 May 2026
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to claim 4 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 4 and 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 11 May 2026, with respect to claims 7-9, 11, 19 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7-9, 11, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues (see page 10):
The distinction between an entity reading data and being sent a response is not merely semantic, it defines fundamentally different system architectures and functional interactions. In Dey, the host processing unit hardware reads metadata and autonomously proceeds. A response is not sent in any sense, let alone to a requestor. In contrast, claim 1 allows for a requester to "decide whether or not to retrieve the data based on an inspection of the meta data" (Application as filed, page 10 lines 25-26) by virtue of the limitations of claim 1. Dey lacks this functionality.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The application is executing on the host processor. The host processor receives a request from the application, then sends a request to the cache memory. REF2 is relied upon for the controller that the request is sent to. The application and the host processor are both requestors from the controller point of view. The cache provides a response to the host processing unit. The response is based on the metadata. First the response would go the processor, then the processor would forward that response to the application to satisfy the application request. Here, the response could just be the data in the cache. The claims do not specify what the response is or what the response includes. The claims only require the response be based on the associated metadata. Sending data that is located using the metadata is a response based on the associated metadata. Finally, claim 1 does not include limitations to decide whether or not to retrieve data based on an inspection of the metadata. Claim 14 contains a limitation where the requestor would determine whether to fetch data based on a response from the controller. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive to overcome the rejection of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEY (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2025/0110861) in view of SCHREIBER (U.S. Patent Application Publication #2015/0187437).
1. DEY discloses A method at a storage controller (see SCHREIBER below), the method comprising: receiving, from a requestor, a request for meta data associated with a region of storage, wherein the request comprises an indication of the region of storage (see [0065]-[0066]: memory request from an application; the request is directed to the tag store [metadata] to determine if there is a hit in the cache); and determining whether the region of storage has associated meta data, wherein when the region of storage has associated meta data (see [0066]-[0067]: determine if there is a hit [region has metadata]), the method further comprises: obtaining the meta data associated with the region of storage (see [0067]: reading metadata from tag store); and sending, to the requestor, a response based at least in part on the associated meta data (see [0067]-[0068]: the metadata from the tag store is sent to the host processing unit, the dedicated bits related to compression information is read by the host, sending the metadata from the tag store would be a response, this response is conditional on a hit in the tag store, additionally, data is returned based on the metadata).
DEY discloses receiving a request and providing a response as claimed. However, DEY fails to disclose the method being performed at a storage controller. SCHREIBER discloses the use of a cache controller that receives read and write requests from a CPU core (see [0023]). The use of a cache controller allows for selective control of the tag array and data array of a cache memory (see [0023]). DEY discloses that the processing unit accesses the cache, but does not provide any details regarding how that access occurs. The host processing unit of DEY would be equivalent to the CPU core disclosed by SCHREIBER. Modifying DEY, to include a cache controller, would allow for the host processor to access the cache memory. The use of a cache controller is one option, of a limited number of options, for facilitating access to a cache by a host processor. “When there is a design need for market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number if identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify DEY to process requests at a storage controller, as disclosed by SCHREIBER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow for selective control of a cache memory using a cache controller, as taught by SCHREIBER. DEY and SCHREIBER are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to retrieving data from a memory.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the region of storage has associated meta data when the region of storage comprises compressed data (see DEY [0067]: dedicated bits are present when the data is compressed).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the meta data is meta data associated with the region of storage or computed from the region of storage (see DEY [0065]: tag store is associated with the region that stores data, the region of the tag store to access is computed based on the data address).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the response based at least in part on the meta data comprises an indication of the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage (see DEY [0066]: a hit indicates there is one match in the tag store).
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the response based at least in part on the associated meta data comprises meta data associated with each meta data region included in the region of storage (see DEY [0066]-[0067]: the response is based on the tag store hit).
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the response based at least in part on the meta data comprises information about one or more characteristics of interest, wherein the one or more characteristics of interest include one or more of transparency information, opaqueness information, all zero information (see DEY [0052]: compression information that identifies a zero value compression algorithm), all same value information and compression information (see DEY [0052]: information regarding the type of compression).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the meta data associated with the region of storage comprises reading header data and wherein the header data comprises a pointer to a body block containing compressed data (see DEY [0068]: mapping between the tag and the cache line).
11. The method of claim 8, wherein the header data comprises information about one or more characteristics of interest, wherein the one or more characteristics of interest include one or more of transparency information, opaqueness information, all zero information (see DEY [0052]: compression information that identifies a zero value compression algorithm), all same value information and compression information (see DEY [0052]: information regarding the type of compression).
Examiner note: The Examiner has interpreted claim 11 as being dependent on claim 10 to resolve antecedent basis issues discussed above. For purposes of compact prosecution, claim 11 has been included in the prior art rejection to provide notice to applicant how the references would apply to claim 11.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the region of storage has associated meta data comprises: determining whether the region of storage has associated meta data that is relevant for the requestor (see [0066]-[0067]: determine if there is a hit [region has metadata]).
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the region of storage is a 1D storage region, a 2D storage region or a 3D storage region (see DEY [0065]: a standard cache memory would be considered a 1D storage region).
18. DEY discloses A system comprising a storage controller, the storage controller being configured to carry out a method comprising: receiving, by the storage controller from a requestor (see SCHREIBER below), a request for meta data associated with a region of storage (see [0065]-[0066]: memory request from an application; the request is directed to the tag store [metadata] to determine if there is a hit in the cache), wherein the request comprises an indication of the region of storage (see [0065]: component of the memory address is used to search the tag store); and determining, by the storage controller (see SCHREIBER below), whether the region of storage has associated meta data, wherein when the region of storage has associated meta data (see [0066]-[0067]: determine if there is a hit [region has metadata]), the method further comprises: obtaining, by the storage controller (see SCHREIBER below), the meta data associated with the region of storage (see [0067]: reading metadata from tag store); and sending, from the storage controller (see SCHREIBER below) to the requestor, a response based at least in part on the associated meta data (see [0067]-[0068]: the metadata from the tag store is sent to the host processing unit, the dedicated bits related to compression information is read by the host, sending the metadata from the tag store would be a response, this response is conditional on a hit in the tag store, additionally, data is returned based on the metadata).
DEY discloses receiving a request and providing a response as claimed. However, DEY fails to disclose that the system includes a storage controller. SCHREIBER discloses the use of a cache controller that receives read and write requests from a CPU core (see [0023]). The use of a cache controller allows for selective control of the tag array and data array of a cache memory (see [0023]). DEY discloses that the processing unit accesses the cache, but does not provide any details regarding how that access occurs. The host processing unit of DEY would be equivalent to the CPU core disclosed by SCHREIBER. Modifying DEY, to include a cache controller, would allow for the host processor to access the cache memory. The use of a cache controller is one option, of a limited number of options, for facilitating access to a cache by a host processor. “When there is a design need for market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number if identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to modify DEY to process requests at a storage controller, as disclosed by SCHREIBER. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow for selective control of a cache memory using a cache controller, as taught by SCHREIBER. DEY and SCHREIBER are analogous/in the same field of endeavor as both references are directed to retrieving data from a memory.
19. The system of claim 18, wherein the system further comprises: the requestor (see DEY [0066]: host processing unit); a system interconnect (see DEY [0065]-[0066]: there would be a connection between the processing unit and the cache, this would be the system interconnect); and a storage element comprising the region of storage (see DEY [0065]: cache line), wherein the requestor is in communication with the requestor via the system interconnect (see DEY [0066]: host processing unit accesses the cache memory), and wherein the storage controller is in communication with the storage element comprising the region of storage (see SCHREIBER [0023]).
20. The system of claim 18, wherein the storage system comprises a compressor and/or a decompressor (see DEY [0062]: compression unit) and wherein the requestor is a CPU, a GPU or a display controller (see DEY [0066]: host processing unit).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
Claims 14-17 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the state of the art fails to anticipate, or render obvious, “… determining the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage; and comparing the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage with a first threshold, wherein when the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage meets the first threshold, the method comprises refusing the request, and wherein when the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage does not meet the first threshold, the method comprises accepting the request.”
the state of the art fails to anticipate, or render obvious, “… comparing the number of meta data regions that are overlapped by the region of storage with a second threshold, wherein when the number of meta data regions that are overlapped by the region of storage meets the second threshold, the method comprises: sending, to the requestor, a response comprising the meta data for all meta data regions that are overlapped by the region of storage, and wherein when the number of meta data regions included in the region of storage does not meet the second threshold, the method comprises: combining the meta data for all meta data regions that are overlapped by the region of storage; and sending, to the requestor, a response comprising the combined meta data for all meta data regions that are overlapped by the region of storage.”
the state of the art fails to anticipate, or render obvious, “… wherein if the response based on the associated meta data is not available to the requestor within a predetermined amount of time, the request for at least some of the data in the region of storage is sent to the storage controller before the response based on the associated meta data is received from the storage controller.”
sending, to a storage controller, a request for meta data associated with a region of storage, wherein the request comprises an indication of the region of storage; receiving, from the storage controller, a response based on the associated meta data; and determining, based at least in part on the response from the storage controller, whether to fetch data in the region of storage.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EDWARD J DUDEK JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00A-4:00P.
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 T 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.
/EDWARD J DUDEK JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights