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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is response to the communication filed on February 18, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment of the claims filed on February 18, 2026 has been entered.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims -- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding the claim 1, it recites exposing, by a memory sub-system, a plurality of first reclaim unit handles to receive write commands having data placement directives identifying the first reclaim unit handles; executing, by the memory sub-system, the write commands according to the data placement directives to separate data of the write commands into a plurality of data sets stored in first reclaim units in the memory sub-system, each of the first reclaim units storing data for no more than one of the data sets; reserving, by the memory sub-system, a second reclaim unit handle for garbage collection;
The claim recited the limitation of reserving -----as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. User can mentally reserve by memorizing (i.e. reclaim unit handle) for deletion object (i.e. garbage collection) which is mental process. If necessary, user can also use physical aid such as pencil and paper. Hence, the limitation is a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III, B, If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand.").
The claim recites two additional elements: exposing ---- to receive write commands…. and executing ---- to separate data of the write commands-----. The exposing step as recited amounts to mere data gathering for use in the executing step, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Further, executing as recited is nothing but data manipulation, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of exposing and executing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The courts have recognized these functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional as they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of identifying, by the memory sub-system during garbage collection and from the first reclaim units, first victim reclaim units having first residual data that remains valid in the first victim reclaim units, the first residual data having portions from different ones of the data sets; and writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the first residual data to second reclaim units, each of the second reclaim units storing data for no more than one of the data sets; wherein the second reclaim unit handle is not usable in a write command from outside of the memory sub-system to specify data placement for the write command, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2 and includes all the limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of identifying, by the memory sub-system during garbage collection and from the first reclaim units, second victim reclaim units having second residual data that remains valid in the second victim reclaim units, the second residual data having portions from different ones of the data sets; and writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the second residual data to a third reclaim unit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes all the limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of raising a flag indicative of isolation violation in response to writing the second residual data to the third reclaim unit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and includes all the limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of storing an allocation map configured to identify data set origins of portions of the second residual data written to the third reclaim unit, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 and includes all the limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 6 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of retrieving, according to the allocation map, a first portion of the second residual data from the third reclaim unit; writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the first portion of the second residual data to a fourth reclaim unit; and marking the first portion of the second residual data as invalid in the third reclaim unit to reduce a number of data sets for which the third reclaim unit stores valid data, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 6 and includes all the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of clearing, after the number of data sets for which the third reclaim unit stores valid data becomes smaller than two, the flag, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and includes all the limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 8 recites the same abstract idea of memory system to support flexible direct placement. The claim recites the limitations of wherein the writing of the first residual data to the second reclaim units is in response to garbage collection in a first condition; and the writing of the second residual data to the third reclaim unit is in response to garbage collection in a second condition, which can be done mentally with or without the use of a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper) or with a generic computer and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation is a mental process.
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helmick et al. (Pub. No. : US 20240012579 A1) in the view of Patil et al. (Patent No. : US 9785643 B1)
As to claim 1 Helmick teaches a method, comprising:
exposing, by a memory sub-system, a plurality of first reclaim unit handles to receive write commands having data placement directives identifying the first reclaim unit handles (paragraphs [0005], [0045]: receives a write command that specifies a reclaim unit handle that currently maps to a reclaim unit and/or reclaim group and to service a write command, a storage device may select a reclaim unit and/or reclaim group);
executing, by the memory sub-system, the write commands according to the data placement directives to separate data of the write commands into a plurality of data sets stored in first reclaim units in the memory sub-system (Paragraph [0053], [0123]: Based on receiving a data operation request with an indication relating to data locality in storage media, the storage device may perform a corresponding data operation based on one or more operations and/or conditions of the storage device, wherein the write operation include copy operation, a deallocate operation, a sanitize operation, an erase operation etc.); and
reserving, by the memory sub-system, a second reclaim unit handle for garbage collection (paragraph [0083], [0086]: garbage collection operations involving a reclaim unit selected by the host, for example, a controller may select a reclaim unit 414 and/or reclaim group 418 based on an opportunistic status).
Helmick does not explicitly disclose but Patil teaches each of the first reclaim units storing data for no more than one of the data sets (column 5 lines 38-39: computing device 202 and/or client system 206 in reclaiming storage space in deduplicating data systems). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Helmick by adding above limitation as taught by Patil to improve performance and/or reduce resource consumption (Patil, column 1 line 37).
As to claim 2 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 1. Helmick teaches
identifying, by the memory sub-system during garbage collection and from the first reclaim units, first victim reclaim units having first residual data that remains valid in the first victim reclaim units, the first residual data having portions from different ones of the data sets (paragraphs [0123], [0125]: controller may perform a garbage collection operation in which valid data (e.g., data that has not been deallocated) in one or more of the previously referenced reclaim units 1014′ may be copied to a different reclaim unit so the one or more of the previously referenced reclaim units 1014′ may be erased and reused); and
writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the first residual data to second reclaim units, each of the second reclaim units storing data for no more than one of the data sets (paragraph [0125]: a controller may read valid data from previously referenced reclaim units RU A′_0, RU B′_0, and RU C′_0 and write them to a reclaim unit 1082 identified as RU α);
wherein the second reclaim unit handle is not usable in a write command from outside of the memory sub-system to specify data placement for the write command (paragraph [0129]: reclaim unit RU α may not receive data from reclaim units that were written using other reclaim handles such as RUH Y and/or RUH Z).
As to claim 3 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 2. Helmick teaches
identifying, by the memory sub-system during garbage collection and from the first reclaim units, second victim reclaim units having second residual data that remains valid in the second victim reclaim units, the second residual data having portions from different ones of the data sets (paragraph [0130]: a controller may read valid data from (e.g., only from) previously referenced reclaim units RU B′_0, RU B′_1, and/or RU B′_2 which were written using the same reclaim unit handle RUH Y and write it to a reclaim unit 1182 identified as RU β.); and
writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the second residual data to a third reclaim unit (paragraph [0130]: A controller may also read valid data from (e.g., only from) previously referenced reclaim units RU C′_0, RU C′_1, and/or RU C′_2 which were written using the same reclaim unit handle RUH Z and write it to a reclaim unit 1182 identified as RU γ.).
As to claim 4 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 3. Helmick teaches raising a flag indicative of isolation violation in response to writing the second residual data to the third reclaim unit (paragraph [0124], [0148]: storage device may perform a check (e.g., an error check) based on the LBA list and one or more reclaim groups and/or one or more reclaim unit handles).
As to claim 5 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 4. Helmick teaches storing an allocation map configured to identify data set origins of portions of the second residual data written to the third reclaim unit (paragraphs [0043], [0075], and fig. 4: a reclaim unit handle may map to a reclaim unit in each reclaim group).
As to claim 6 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 5. Helmick teaches retrieving, according to the allocation map, a first portion of the second residual data from the third reclaim unit (paragraph [0075]-[0076], [0129]: The controller may use a placement handle list to map one or more placement handles and move data from previously referenced reclaim units);
writing, using the second reclaim unit handle, the first portion of the second residual data to a fourth reclaim unit (paragraph [0075]-[0076], [0129]: The controller may use a placement handle list to map one or more placement handles and move data from previously referenced reclaim units); and
marking the first portion of the second residual data as invalid in the third reclaim unit to reduce a number of data sets for which the third reclaim unit stores valid data (paragraph [0069], [0105]: deallocated memory blocks).
As to claim 7 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 6. Helmick teaches clearing, after the number of data sets for which the third reclaim unit stores valid data becomes smaller than two, the flag (paragraph [0124], [0148]: storage device may perform a check (e.g., an error check) based on the LBA list and one or more reclaim groups and/or one or more reclaim unit handles).
As to claim 8 Helmick together with Patil teaches a method according to claim 7. Helmick teaches wherein the writing of the first residual data to the second reclaim units is in response to garbage collection in a first condition and the writing of the second residual data to the third reclaim unit is in response to garbage collection in a second condition (paragraph [0125], [0130]-[0131]: a controller may read valid data from previously referenced reclaim units RU A′_0, RU B′_0, and RU C′_0 and write them to a reclaim unit 1082 identified as RU α.).
As to claims 9-20, they have similar limitations as of claims 1-8 above. Hence, they are rejected under the same rational as of claims 1-8 above.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or paragraphs in the references as 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 the 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 its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD I UDDIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Sherief Badawi can be reached at 571-272-9782. 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.
/MD I UDDIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights