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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, claim 17 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: One of the factors weighing against eligibility is that there is no recitation of a machine or transformation. In this particular case, the method steps of claim 17 of “…receiving one or more commands indicating to write a sequence of data at the memory system in accordance with an ordering of the sequence of data; writing a respective subset of the sequence of data to each first memory die of a plurality of first memory dies of the memory system; and writing, based at least in part on organizing the respective subsets of the sequence of data in accordance with the ordering of the sequence of data, the sequence of data to a second memory die of the memory system.” could be performed mentally and the claims are merely a general concept of organizing data. Thus, claim 17 is non-statutory. NOTE: there is no device or apparatus or machine recited in the claims (e.g.-claim 17) and/or there is no practical transformation of a machine that is tied to the claims due to the execution of the recited method steps, hence, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be performed/narrated mentally.
The abstract idea of the instant application is substantially similar to the court identified abstract idea found in Electric Power Group. It is similar because it accesses data, determines/identifies certain data (analysis), and accesses the determined/identified certain data. Other court identified abstract idea are related to the abstract idea identified in the instant application, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource) and organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claim. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 17-21 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 and 6-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2020/0304148), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Referring to claim 2, Yang teaches, as claimed, a memory system, comprising: a plurality of first memory dies; a second memory die; and processing circuitry coupled with the plurality of first memory dies and the second memory die (i.e.- a memory apparatus comprised of multiple SLC blocks, TLC blocks and a memory controller, see fig. 1 and page 2, ¶14, lines 1-11), the processing circuitry configured to cause the memory system to: write a respective subset of a sequence of data to each first memory die of the plurality of first memory dies (i.e.-programming/writing of data into memory blocks sequentially, page 2, ¶17, lines 1-3, 7 and 8; and first, second and third SLC write/programming commands, page 2, ¶18, lines 3, 10 and 16); read the respective subsets of the sequence of data from the plurality of first memory dies (i.e.-sequentially reading groups of data from plurality of cell blocks, page 1, ¶6, line 14 and page 3, ¶22, lines 1-10); and write, based at least in part on organizing the respective subsets of the sequence of data in accordance with an ordering of the sequence of data, the sequence of data to the second memory die (i.e.-after completion of writing/programming the above three groups of data into the three SLC blocks, performing internal copy/write operation by copying the three groups of data into TLC block 1052, page 3, ¶20, lines 1-11).
As to claim 3, Yang teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein, to write the respective subset of the sequence of data to each first memory die, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the memory system to: write a first subset of the sequence of data and a second subset of the sequence of data to two first memory dies of the plurality of first memory dies concurrently. (page 2, ¶15, lines 3-6).
As to claim 4, Yang teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein, to read the respective subsets of the sequence of data from the plurality of first memory dies, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the memory system to: read a first subset of the sequence of data and a second subset of the sequence of data from two first memory dies of the plurality of first memory dies concurrently. (page 1, ¶6, line 14 and page 2, ¶15, lines 3-6).
As to claim 6, Yang teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein each respective subset of the sequence of data comprises a contiguous portion of the sequence of data (i.e.-reading data from the contiguous blocks 1051A to 1051C, page 3, ¶22, lines 3-4).
As to claim 7, Yang innately teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein each respective subset of the sequence of data comprises a non-contiguous portion of the sequence of data (page 3, ¶20, lines 11-13; and ¶21, lines 8-9).
As to claim 8, Yang teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein each first memory die of the plurality of first memory dies is configured in accordance with a first storage density (i.e.-SLC, page 2, ¶14, lines 8-12) and the second memory die is configured in accordance with a second storage density, the second storage density greater than the first storage density (i.e.-TLC, page 2, ¶14, lines 17-18).
As to claim 9, Yang innately teaches the memory system of claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive one or more commands indicating to write the sequence of data at the memory system in accordance with the ordering of the sequence of data (page 1, ¶5, lines 15-18; page 3, ¶20, lines 22-24; page 5, ¶35, lines 2-5), wherein writing the respective subsets of the sequence of data to each first memory die is based at least in part on reception of the one or more commands (page 2, ¶18, lines 2-4 and 15-17).
Referring to claims 10-16, the claims are substantially the same as claims 2-4 and 6-9, hence the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-9 is applied accordingly.
Referring to claims 17-21, the claims are substantially the same as claims 2-4 and 6-9, hence the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-9 is applied accordingly.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Shatil et al. (US 6,728,840), hereinafter referred to as Shatil.
As to claim 5, Yang teaches the claimed invention except the limitation of claim 5.
On the other hand, Shatil discloses a storage system and method configured to execute one or more commands comprising a command to open a zone of a file system for writing the sequence of data (see Abstract, lines 16-18; and col. 6, lines 55-60); and the write being in accordance with the zone of the file system being open, the zone associated with the second memory die (col. 8, lines 55-60).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yang so that, to write the sequence of data to the second memory die, the processing circuitry is configured to cause the memory system to: open a zone associated with the second memory die for storage of the sequence of data; and write the sequence of data to the zone associated with the second memory die based at least in part on opening the zone, as taught by Shatil. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the computer system to access data that is specified in the request/command using an open file system command.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheon et al. (US 7,970,981), Gorobets et al. (US 9,218,283), Hady (US 10,031,845), Parker et al. (US 8,990,477), Sprouse et al. (US 9,329,989) and Um (US 10,235,046) do teach memory system comprised of multiple memory dies, the memory system configured to execute sequential write operation.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights