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 § 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 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.
Claims 1- 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Raiken et al. (US 2016/0077976) and in further view of Chinese Office Action/Chinese Patent Application No. 202080014023.1 see pages 1-8 and citation of prior art used on pages 1, 3-7, hereafter Roos (US 2008/068993), sited as prior art in IDS dated 05/25/2025 and in further view of Matthews et al., (US 2005/0251630).
As per claim 1, Roos teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a storage device (external host servers, [0052, 0113-0114]), a reserve command (Roos discloses a method for data streaming and receiving streaming media request from a plurality of user devices over a network (this includes other host devices, i.e. from user devices 11a, 11b or other external host servers, [0052, 0113-0114]) and providing said addresses to corresponding storage sectors of the secondary storage unit ([0046-0052]) that stores a sub-sets of payload data depending on a playback mode requested by the streaming unit request. ([0002, 0051-0062, 0113]) In other words, each comprising data request corresponds to an address in the memory unit (7, Fig. 1) because the streaming unit is adapted to receive from the memory unit a first sub-set payload data set ([0042-0045]) and a first sub-set of a control data set (from control unit, 6, Fig.1) wherein the first control data sub-set comprises data corresponding to a location in the memory unit. (Roos, [0016-0023]) Thus, each sub-sets of payload data would obviously be unique (reserved) depending upon the playback mode.) to allocate a resource of the storage device for streaming data between the storage device and a secondary device. Roos does not expressly teach the term stream identity; however, Raiken teaches a type of stream identity.
Raiken teaches generating, by the storage device, a stream identity corresponding to the resource allocated for the streaming, registering the stream identity with the secondary device; wherein the storage device transfers data to the secondary device based on the stream identity. Specifically, Raiken teaches a memory access request from a secondary device, (GPU3, Fig. 1) the memory access request (‘command’ paragraph [0083], the ‘X1’ and step 308 in Fig. 4) comprising a stream identity configured for streaming data between the storage device and the secondary device (note [0082], an address space is reserved and thus unique whereby for mapping the addresses of the GPU to those of the SSD), and transferring, by the storage device, data to the secondary device in response to the memory access request (note [0084] that states “..the GPU waits to receive from the SSD a notification that the SSD has completed reading the GPU buffer.”), the data being contained in a memory address of the storage device corresponding to the stream identity. ([0081-0084]) Raiken teaches describing a write transaction in which data is transferred from the GPU (the secondary device) to the SSD (the storage device). Further, Raiken discloses in [0086] that the GPU can also make read request to the SSD following the same method (i.e. including mapping GPU addresses to addresses of the SSD). Therein, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Raiken before him or her, that Raiken implicitly discloses a ‘stream identity’ do to the fact that data received by the SSD from the GPU could be a memory read request command that comprises a memory address therein an address space has to be reserved and thus obvious unique (i.e. the steaming identity, note X1 or Y1 in Fig. 4) for mapping the addresses of the GPU to those of the SSD. Doing so would have obtained the advantage of providing manageable data flow between memory and any streaming device. Finally, Raiken teaches that in one embodiment the CPU, HCA, or GPU can send address commands and in another embodiment that GPU or SSD can independently manage the exchange between the memory requests.
Raiken and Roos are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor in a network memory (buffer) access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the claimed invention, having the teaches of Raiken and Roos, before him or her, to implement the teachings of Raiken’s ‘stream identity’ to be generated to include reserve an ending – by Roos’ data request that corresponds to an address in the memory unit (7, Fig. 1) from the streaming unit – the streaming between the storage device and the secondary device with Raiken. Therein, each sub-sets of payload data would obviously be unique (reserved) depending upon the playback mode requested by Roos’ method of streaming and receiving data streaming requests either from a host, user input, or other types of devices over a network ([0113-0114]). Doing so would have obtained the advantage of providing memory addresses to the streamer indicating an exact position of the needed (requested) content thereby managing data flow for the benefit of reducing a retrieval time.
Nonetheless, are analogous art because Matthews teaches this limitation a stream identity being different from a memory address of the storage device. Matthews teaches a read demand request from a processor may be analyzed to determine whether the requested data to be accessed is part of a streaming data access. Or the request may be a write demand request to send data to a storage device, such as a disk drive [0008]); therein, Matthews teaches that in various embodiments (Fig1) information regarding the stream may be stored in metadata (block 40). Such information may be used to later identify the same stream, if later requested for access. Such metadata ([0015, 0022]) may be used to directly access the data for this later request from, for example, a disk drive and forego storage in a cache associated therewith ([0010)]. Therein, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the claimed invention that Matthew’s metadata is a type of stream identify and read/write request may be sent to the disk (block 145) and the disk may then access the requested data and send the data for storage in a disk cache associated therewith (block 150).
Raiken-Roos and Matthew are analogous art because they are from the same filed of endeavor in a memory (buffer) access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date at the time of the claimed invention, having the teaches of Raiken-Roos and Matthew, before him or her, to implement the teachings of Matthew’s ‘stream identity’ to be generated to include stream identity being different from a memory address of the storage device. The motivation to adding Matthew would be to obtain the greatest benefit of caching data from a storage device to obtain the greatest benefit of caching data from a storage device such as a disk drive (memory unit/SSD, data that is placed and maintained in the cache can be prioritized ([0002)] using separate metadata.
As per claims 2 and 3, Raiken-Roos and Matthew teaches wherein the resource allocated for the streaming comprises a stream buffer of the storage device; and wherein the stream buffer corresponds to the memory address of the storage device. Specially, Raiken teaches allocating, by the storage device, a stream buffer according to the stream identity, wherein the stream buffer corresponds to the memory address of the storage device. Specifically, note the SSD that has a buffer (82, Fig.1) which is used for streaming and the addresses or stream identities (X! and Y1 in Fig. 4) used correspond to addresses in the buffers of the devices. Roos teaches wherein each data request corresponds to an address in the memory unit (7, Fig. 1) because the streaming unit is adapted to receive from the memory unit a first sub-set payload data set ([0042-0045]) and a first sub-set of a control data set (from control unit, 6, Fig.1) wherein the first control data sub-set comprises data corresponding to a location in the memory unit. (Roos, [0016-0023]) Thus, each sub-sets of payload data would obviously be unique (reserved) depending upon the playback mode.
As per claim 4 and 5, Raiken-Roos and Matthew teaches wherein to register the stream identity with the secondary device, the method further comprises: receiving, by the secondary device, the stream identity from a host device different from the storage device; and saving, by the secondary device, the stream identity for data streaming with the storage device. Raiken-Roos teaches wherein the stream identity is a unique token to configure data streaming between the storage device and the secondary device. Raiken implicitly discloses a ‘stream identity’ do to the fact that data received by the SSD from the GPU could be a memory read request command that comprises a memory address therein an address space has to be reserved and thus obvious unique (i.e. the steaming identity) for mapping the addresses of the GPU to those of the SSD. Roos teaches that each comprising data request corresponds to an address in the memory unit (7, Fig. 1) because the streaming unit is adapted to receive from the memory unit a first sub-set payload data set ([0042-0045]) and a first sub-set of a control data set (from control unit, 6, Fig.1) wherein the first control data sub-set comprises data corresponding to a location in the memory unit. (Roos, [0016-0023]) Thus, each sub-sets of payload data would obviously be unique (reserved) depending upon the playback mode.
As per claims 6-8, Raiken-Roos and Matthew teaches wherein the storage device is a solid state drive (SSD) and the secondary device is a field programmable gate array (FPGA) and wherein the SSD and the FPGA are co-located in a computational storage drive. Specifically, Raiken teaches wherein the storage device is a solid state drive (SSD, Fig. 1) and the secondary device is a field programmable gate array (FPGA, [0056]). Raiken further teaches wherein the SSD and the FPGA are located on the same bus or computational storage drive. As to the limitations of claim 8 wherein the SSD and the FPGA are located on a same bus; all of the device in Raiken are on the same PCEe bus note Fig. 1. Further, it would not be out of Raiken’s inventive concept design to have a SSD and FPGA on the same bus or computational storage drive.
As per claim 9, Riken-Roos and Matthew teaches wherein the stream identity is a unique token to configure data streaming between the storage device and the secondary device. Raiken-Roos teaches wherein the stream identity is a unique token to configure data streaming between the storage device and the secondary device. Raiken implicitly discloses a ‘stream identity’ do to the fact that data received by the SSD from the GPU could be a memory read request command that comprises a memory address therein an address space has to be reserved and thus obvious unique (i.e. the steaming identity) for mapping the addresses of the GPU to those of the SSD.
As per claims 10 and 19, Raiken teaches a system comprising: a storage device (SSD) ; a secondary device (GPU) connected to the storage device; and a host device (note CPU, 32) connected (via PCIe bus, 40) to the storage device (SSD) and the secondary device (GPU), wherein the storage device ([0090, 0095-0099]). See the rejection for claim 1 above.
As per claims 11-18 and 20, see the rejection for claims 1-9 above.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. 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 on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
/TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights