DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This Office action is in response to communications dated 6/19/2026.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 19-21 are amended.
Claims 15-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-14 and 19-24 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The Examiner thanks Applicant for helping to ensure the clarity of the record by clearly stating that reference numeral 402 is specified by paragraph 0097 of the specification of the disclosure of the instant application to refer interchangeably to “application framework layer 402” or “framework layer 402” and therefore respectfully withdraws the objection to the drawings made in the non-final Office action dated 4/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner thanks Applicant for helping to ensure the clarity of the record by amending the claims to cure the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) noted in the rejections of claims 1-14 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) in the non-final Office action dated 4/23/2026 and therefore respectfully withdraws the rejections of claims 1-14 and 19-24 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) made therein.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2013/0282955 (“Parker) in view of USPGPUB 2012/0303918 (“Reed”).
As per claim 1, Parker substantially teaches a method (Parker, FIG. 9) comprising:
a method performed by a management device of a terminal that comprises a flash memory device comprising a flash memory controller and a storage medium, the method comprising: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 1, reference numerals 100, 102, 106, and 108; FIG, 9; and paragraphs 0022-0025 and 0036-0038, where the flash memory system of Parker may comprise host system 100 (i.e., a terminal) that stores data into, and retrieves data from, storage device 102 (i.e., a management device). Storage device 102 may comprise flash memory 108 (i.e., a storage medium) that is controlled by controller 106 (i.e., a flash memory controller). The method illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 9) for limiting fragmentation may be implemented by the components illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 1). Parker therefore substantially teaches a method performed by a management device of a terminal that comprises a flash memory device comprising a flash memory controller and a storage medium, the method comprising);
in response to a specified condition being satisfied, sending a first instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on a storage medium; receiving, from the flash memory controller, a first message comprising a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; responsive to the character field having a first value indicating that physical address corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive, sending, in response to the first message, a second instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the second instruction is configured to instruct the flash memory controller to reorganize the fragmented files on the storage medium: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 9; and paragraphs 0005-0009; 0037-0038; and 0047-0049, where the flash memory system of Parker uses trigger events to instruct a flash memory controller when to perform defragmentation. The Examiner notes that the trigger events cause defragmentation to be performed, which means that the trigger events instruct performance of defragmentation. The system of Parker monitors a level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory system and instructs the flash memory controller, via a first message and response, to proactively perform defragmentation that sequentially stores data to be written to the flash memory. When the monitored level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory reaches a trigger threshold, the flash memory controller receives a message to perform reactive defragmentation that reorganizes data stored in the flash memory in order to maximize sequential data stored in the flash memory. The Examiner notes that the monitored level of defragmentation is compared to a threshold, which means that the monitored level of fragmentation necessarily comprises characters and thus requires a character field that denotes fragmentation level. Parker therefore substantially teaches in response to a specified condition being satisfied, sending a first instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on a storage medium; receiving, from the flash memory controller, a first message comprising a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; responsive to the character field having a first value indicating that physical address corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive, sending, in response to the first message, a second instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the second instruction is configured to instruct the flash memory controller to reorganize the fragmented files on the storage medium).
Parker does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art Reed teaches defragmentation of data storage pools.
As per claim 1, Reed particularly teaches:
wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium: (Reed, Abstract; FIG. 3, reference numerals 300, 315, 320, 325, and 330; and paragraphs 0044-0048 and 0065-0071, where the system of Reed performs defragmentation by determining an amount of fragmentation (i.e., a fragmentation status) of data stored in the system as part of a defragmentation instruction. The Examiner notes that the defragmentation instruction includes determining an amount of fragmentation of data (i.e., the fragmentation status) stored in the system and is thus a read fragmentation status instruction. Reed therefore particularly teaches wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Reed and Parker before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Parker to include the principles of Reed of determining fragmentation status of data in order to compare in relation to a threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system flexibility by implementing data defragmentation techniques that make use of commercially available defragmentation applications to enable a user to select objects to be defragmented (Reed, paragraph 0040).
As per claim 10, Parker substantially teaches a method (Parker, FIG. 9) comprising:
a method performed by a flash memory controller of a flash memory device in a terminal comprising a management device and the flash memory device, wherein the flash memory device comprises a storage medium, and wherein the method comprises: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 1, reference numerals 100, 102, 106, and 108; FIG, 9; and paragraphs 0022-0025 and 0036-0038, where the flash memory system of Parker may comprise host system 100 (i.e., a terminal) that stores data into, and retrieves data from, storage device 102 (i.e., a management device). Storage device 102 may comprise flash memory 108 (i.e., a storage medium) that is controlled by controller 106 (i.e., a flash memory controller). The method illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 9) for limiting fragmentation may be implemented by the components illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 1). Parker therefore substantially teaches a method performed by a flash memory controller of a flash memory device in a terminal comprising a management device and the flash memory device, wherein the flash memory device comprises a storage medium, and wherein the method comprises);
receiving a first instruction from the management device when a specified condition is satisfied, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; sending a first message to the management device in response to the first instruction, wherein the first message comprises a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; receiving a second instruction from the management device when the character field has a first value indicating that physical addresses corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive; and reorganizing the fragmented files stored on the storage medium in response to the second instruction: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 9; and paragraphs 0005-0009; 0037-0038; and 0047-0049, where the flash memory system of Parker uses trigger events to instruct a flash memory controller when to perform defragmentation. The Examiner notes that the trigger events cause defragmentation to be performed, which means that the trigger events instruct performance of defragmentation. The system of Parker monitors a level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory system and instructs the flash memory controller, via a first message and response, to proactively perform defragmentation that sequentially stores data to be written to the flash memory. When the monitored level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory reaches a trigger threshold, the flash memory controller receives a message to perform reactive defragmentation that reorganizes data stored in the flash memory in order to maximize sequential data stored in the flash memory. The Examiner notes that the monitored level of defragmentation is compared to a threshold, which means that the monitored level of fragmentation necessarily comprises characters and thus requires a character field that denotes fragmentation level. Parker therefore substantially teaches receiving a first instruction from the management device when a specified condition is satisfied, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; sending a first message to the management device in response to the first instruction, wherein the first message comprises a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; receiving a second instruction from the management device when the character field has a first value indicating that physical addresses corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive; and reorganizing the fragmented files stored on the storage medium in response to the second instruction).
Parker does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art Reed teaches defragmentation of data storage pools.
As per claim 10, Reed particularly teaches:
wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; scanning data stored on the storage medium to obtain the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium: (Reed, Abstract; FIG. 3, reference numerals 300, 315, 320, 325, and 330; and paragraphs 0044-0048 and 0065-0071, where the system of Reed performs defragmentation by determining an amount of fragmentation (i.e., a fragmentation status) of data stored in the system as part of a defragmentation instruction. The Examiner notes that the defragmentation instruction includes determining an amount of fragmentation of data (i.e., the fragmentation status) stored in the system and is thus a read fragmentation status instruction. The Examiner further notes that data of the system of Reed must be scanned in order to determine precisely how fragmented the data is. Reed therefore particularly teaches wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; scanning data stored on the storage medium to obtain the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Reed and Parker before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Parker to include the principles of Reed of determining fragmentation status of data in order to compare in relation to a threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system flexibility by implementing data defragmentation techniques that make use of commercially available defragmentation applications to enable a user to select objects to be defragmented (Reed, paragraph 0040).
As per claim 19, Parker substantially teaches a terminal (Parker, FIG. 1), comprising:
a flash memory device comprising a flash memory controller and a storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores fragmented files; and a management device coupled to the flash memory device and configured to: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 1, reference numerals 100, 102, 106, and 108; FIG, 9; and paragraphs 0022-0025 and 0036-0038, where the flash memory system of Parker may comprise host system 100 (i.e., a terminal) that stores data into, and retrieves data from, storage device 102 (i.e., a management device). Storage device 102 may comprise flash memory 108 (i.e., a storage medium) that is controlled by controller 106 (i.e., a flash memory controller). The method illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 9) for limiting fragmentation may be implemented by the components illustrated by (Parker, FIG. 1). Parker therefore substantially teaches a flash memory device comprising a flash memory controller and a storage medium, wherein the storage medium stores fragmented files; and a management device coupled to the flash memory device and configured to);
in response to a specified condition being satisfied, send a first instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; receive, from the flash memory controller, a first message comprising a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; and responsive to the character field having a first value indicating that physical addresses corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive, send, in response to the first message, a second instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the second instruction is configured to instruct the flash memory controller to reorganize the fragmented files on the storage medium, wherein the flash memory controller is configured to: receive the first instruction from the management device when the specified condition is satisfied; send the first message to the management device in response to the first instruction; receive the second instruction from the management device; and reorganize the fragmented files stored on the storage medium in response to the second instruction: (Parker, Abstract; FIG. 9; and paragraphs 0005-0009; 0037-0038; and 0047-0049, where the flash memory system of Parker uses trigger events to instruct a flash memory controller when to perform defragmentation. The Examiner notes that the trigger events cause defragmentation to be performed, which means that the trigger events instruct performance of defragmentation. The system of Parker monitors a level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory system and instructs the flash memory controller, via a first message and response, to proactively perform defragmentation that sequentially stores data to be written to the flash memory. When the monitored level of fragmentation observed in the flash memory reaches a trigger threshold, the flash memory controller receives a message to perform reactive defragmentation that reorganizes data stored in the flash memory in order to maximize sequential data stored in the flash memory. The Examiner notes that the monitored level of defragmentation is compared to a threshold, which means that the monitored level of fragmentation necessarily comprises characters and thus requires a character field that denotes fragmentation level. Parker therefore substantially teaches in response to a specified condition being satisfied, send a first instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the first instruction is configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; receive, from the flash memory controller, a first message comprising a character field indicating the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium; and responsive to the character field having a first value indicating that physical addresses corresponding to the fragmented files stored on the storage medium are not consecutive, send, in response to the first message, a second instruction to the flash memory controller, wherein the second instruction is configured to instruct the flash memory controller to reorganize the fragmented files on the storage medium, wherein the flash memory controller is configured to: receive the first instruction from the management device when the specified condition is satisfied; send the first message to the management device in response to the first instruction; receive the second instruction from the management device; and reorganize the fragmented files stored on the storage medium in response to the second instruction).
Parker does not appear to explicitly teach the other limitations of this claim beyond those taught above; however, in an analogous art Reed teaches defragmentation of data storage pools.
As per claim 19, Reed particularly teaches:
wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; and scan data stored on the storage medium to obtain the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium: (Reed, Abstract; FIG. 3, reference numerals 300, 315, 320, 325, and 330; and paragraphs 0044-0048 and 0065-0071, where the system of Reed performs defragmentation by determining an amount of fragmentation (i.e., a fragmentation status) of data stored in the system as part of a defragmentation instruction. The Examiner notes that the defragmentation instruction includes determining an amount of fragmentation of data (i.e., the fragmentation status) stored in the system and is thus a read fragmentation status instruction. The Examiner further notes that data of the system of Reed must be scanned in order to determine precisely how fragmented the data is. Reed therefore particularly teaches wherein the first instruction is a Read Fragmentation Status instruction configured to query a fragmentation status of fragmented files stored on the storage medium; and scan data stored on the storage medium to obtain the fragmentation status of the fragmented files stored on the storage medium.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Reed and Parker before them before the instant application was effectively filed, to modify the system of Parker to include the principles of Reed of determining fragmentation status of data in order to compare in relation to a threshold.
The modification would have been obvious because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase system flexibility by implementing data defragmentation techniques that make use of commercially available defragmentation applications to enable a user to select objects to be defragmented (Reed, paragraph 0040).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks dated 6/19/2026, Applicant substantially argues:
Parker neither teaches nor suggests the claimed combination of features of the inventions of the instant application.
Applicant’s arguments dated 6/19/2026 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The Examiner notes that the new Reed reference in combination with Parker clearly teaches the limitations added via amendment. The Examiner further notes that the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daniel C. Chappell whose telephone number is (571)272-5003. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800, Eastern.
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, Jared I. Rutz can be reached at (571)272-5535. 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.
Daniel C. Chappell
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2135
/Daniel C. Chappell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights