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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 should be amended to “maintain a logical-to-physical (L2P) table comprising a plurality of logical block addresses (LBAs) of the memory device, wherein the plurality of LBAs are organized as a plurality of partitions each respective partition including a respective subset of the plurality of LBAs, and wherein a granularity of a L2P table portion, partition, the L2P table portion” in subsequent limitation, and iv) it is clear what (granularity of respective partition) is adjustable.
Claim 1 should be amended to “monitor, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, a quantity of read/modify/write (R/M/W) operations performed on LBAs corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions
Claim 1 should be amended to “for each partition of the plurality of partitions, determine, based on the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the LBAs corresponding to each partition, whether to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions thereto”, and iii) what (each partition, plurality of partitions, granularity) is being referred to by “thereon”.
Claim 2 should be amended to “wherein the controller is configured to monitor the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the LBAs corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions
Claim 3 should be amended to “wherein the controller is further configured to, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, determine whether to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding to each partition of plurality of partitions
Claim 4 should be amended to “wherein the controller is configured to reduce a granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding to a particular partition responsive to a determination that the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the [[LBAs]] LBAs, corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partition, exceeds the threshold quantity of R/M/W operations”. This is the same issue as claim 1 (for “thereto”) and claim 2 (for “LBAs”). In addition, this is so that it is clear what (quantity of R/M/W or correspondence to each partition) exceeds threshold.
Claim 5 should be amended to “wherein the controller is configured to increase a granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding to a particular partition responsive to a determination that the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the [[LBAs]] LBAs, corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions, does not exceed the threshold quantity of R/M/W operations”. This is the same issue as claim 1 (for “thereto”) and claim 2 (for “LBAs”). In addition, this is so that it is clear what (quantity of R/M/W or correspondence to each partition) does not exceed threshold.
Claim 7 should be amended to “wherein the controller comprises artificial intelligence (AI) circuitry configured to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portions corresponding to the respective partition the respective granularities”, “the table portions” and “the respective partitions”.
Claim 7 should be amended to “wherein the controller and the memory device are part of a solid state drive coupled to a host”. This is so that it is not unclear whether “the” applies to memory device or not.
Claim 9 is the method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1, and is objected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 13 should be amended to “wherein monitoring the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the LBAs corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions includes maintaining respective counters”. This is the same issue as claim 2.
Claim 14 should be amended to “wherein the method includes, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, decreasing the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions , performed on the LBAs corresponding to each partition of the plurality of partitions, thereto”, ii) same R/M/W operations should refer to same (and not different) LBAs, and iii) it is clear what (each partition, granularity, quantity of R/M/W) is being referred to by “thereon”.
Claim 16 should be amended to “determine whether a pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned head, wherein the particular partition utilizes the first table granularity”. There is no antecedence basis for “the partition”.
Claim 16 should be amended to “responsive to determining that the pointer has [[an]] the unaligned head or [[an]] the unaligned tail, determine whether to adjust a table granularity of the particular partition from the first table granularity to a second table granularity that is different than the first table granularity”. This is so that subsequent “the unaligned head/tail” is not unclear whether it is referring to the one here or the one in determine limitations.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also objected on the same grounds as said above identified claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 15 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2 and 6 – 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are anticipated by Patent 12,326,807.
Instant Application
Patent 12,236,807
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device and configured to:
maintain a logical-to-physical (L2P) table comprising a plurality of logical block addresses (LBAs) of the memory device, wherein the plurality of LBAs are organized as a plurality of partitions each including a respective subset of the plurality of LBAs, and wherein a granularity of L2P table portions corresponding to the respective partitions is adjustable;
monitor, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, a quantity of read/modify/write (R/M/W) operations performed on LBAs corresponding thereto; and
for each partition of the plurality of partitions, determine whether to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding thereto based on the quantity of R/M/W operations performed thereon.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device and configured to:
maintain a logical-to-physical (L2P) table comprising a plurality of logical block addresses (LBAs) of the memory device, wherein the plurality of LBAs are organized as a plurality of partitions of the L2P table, wherein each partition of the L2P table includes a respective subset of the plurality of LBAs;
monitor, for each partition of the L2P table, a quantity of read/modify/write (R/M/W) operations performed on the memory device at the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs;
for each partition of the L2P table and based on the quantity of R/M/W operations and the quantity of read operations performed on the memory device at the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs, adjust a value of a respective corresponding granularity of the L2P table.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, determine whether to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding thereto by determining whether the quantity of R/M/W operations exceeds a threshold quantity of R/M/W operations.
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to determine, for each partition of the L2P table, whether the quantity of R/M/W operations performed on the memory device at the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs exceeds a threshold quantity of R/M/W operations.
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises artificial intelligence (AI) circuitry configured to adjust the respective granularities of the table portions to which respective partitions correspond.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises artificial intelligence (AI) circuitry configured to adjust, for each partition of the L2P table, a value of the respective granularity of the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs based on the quantity of R/M/W operations and the quantity of read operations performed on the memory device at the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs.
15. The method of claim 9, wherein the method includes training a neural network implemented on the controller based on the monitoring of the quantity of R/M/W operations.
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller comprises artificial intelligence (AI) circuitry configured to adjust, for each partition of the L2P table, a value of the respective granularity of the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs based on the quantity of R/M/W operations and the quantity of read operations performed on the memory device at the respective subset of the plurality of LBAs.
16. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device and configured to:
maintain a logical-to-physical (L2P) table comprising a plurality of partitions corresponding to respective different logical block address (LBA) ranges of the memory device;
receive a command associated with an LBA of a particular partition of the plurality of partitions;
determine whether a pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned head, wherein the partition utilizes the first table granularity;
determine whether the pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned tail; and
responsive to determining that the pointer has an unaligned head or an unaligned tail, determine whether to adjust a table granularity of the particular partition from the first table granularity to a second table granularity that is different than the first table granularity.
7. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device and configured to:
maintain a logical-to-physical (L2P) table comprising a plurality of logical block addresses (LBAs) of the memory device, wherein the plurality of LBAs are organized as a plurality of partitions of the L2P table, wherein each partition of the L2P table includes a respective subset of the plurality of LBAs;
receive a write command associated with an LBA of a partition of the plurality of partitions of the L2P table;
determine, for a first granularity, whether a subset of the plurality of LBAs, corresponding to the partition, has an unaligned head, wherein the partition utilizes the first granularity;
determine, for the first granularity, whether the subset of the plurality of LBAs, corresponding to the partition, had an unaligned tail; and
responsive to determining that, for the first granularity, the subset of the plurality of LBAs have an unaligned head or an unaligned tail, utilize a second granularity different than the first granularity for the subset of the plurality of LBAs.
17. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the command is a write command.
7. receive a write command associated with an LBA of a partition of the plurality of partitions of the L2P table
18. The apparatus of claim 16, wherein the controller is configured to:
increment a first counter responsive to determining that the pointer corresponding to the particular partition has the unaligned head.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the controller is further configured to:
responsive to determining, for the first granularity, that the subset of the plurality of LBAs has the unaligned head, increment a value of the first counter
19. The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to increment a second counter responsive to determining that the pointer corresponding to the particular partition has the unaligned tail.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the controller is further configured to:
responsive to determining, for the first granularity, that the subset of the plurality of LBAs has the unaligned tail, increment a value of the second counter;
20. The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to adjust the table granularity of the particular partition from the first table granularity to the second table granularity responsive to determining that a count of the first counter has exceeded a first threshold value or that a count of the second counter as exceeded a second threshold value.
8. The apparatus of claim 7, wherein:
the controller is further configured to:
responsive to the value of the first counter or the value of the second counter exceeding a threshold value, utilize the second granularity for the subset of the plurality of LBAs, wherein a value of the second granularity is less than a value of the first granularity.
Claim 9 is the method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,807 in view of Helmick (US 20210374067). The claims at issue are obvious in view of Helmick as outline below.
Regarding claim 6, Patent’ 807 teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (see Patent ‘807 mapping above for claim 1).
As noted in claim 1, Patent ‘807 teaches a base apparatus with L2P table with LBAs of memory device. The claimed invention improves upon said base apparatus by associating sad LBAs with NAND memory device (see also limitation below).
wherein the memory device comprise a NAND memory device
This improvement to said base apparatus is an application of known technique from Helmick – L2P comprises sections, each with LBA (LBAs) pointing to corresponding NAND (NAND) location in NVM 404 (memory device) (see Helmick ¶[58]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this known technique of using L2P to map LBAs to NAND location in NVM can also be applied to Patent’ 807’s L2P table, and the result would have been predictable. In this instance, said L2P table maps said LBAs to NAND (NAND) locations in NVM (memory device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that applying Helmick’s known technique would have yielded i) predictable result of said L2P table mapping said LBAs to NAND (NAND) locations in NVM (memory device), and ii) the improved claimed invention (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, “receive a command associated with an LBA of a particular partition of the plurality of partitions”, “determine whether a pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned head, wherein the partition utilizes the first table granularity”, “determine whether the pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned tail”, and “responsive to determining that the pointer has an unaligned head or an unaligned tail, determine whether to adjust a table granularity of the particular partition from the first table granularity to a second table granularity that is different than the first table granularity” lack written support. An original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved (see MPEP 2163.03(V)). In this instance, said command encompass a read operation where the claim recites functional language of adjusting table granularity based on read operation having unaligned head/tail. While the instant specification discloses how a write operation, with unaligned head/tail, is used to adjust L2P table granularity, there is no support for a read operation, with unaligned head/tail, used to adjust L2P table granularity. Therefore, the claim, as originally filed, lacks written support.
Claims, dependent upon claim 16, are also rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 recites, at least, determining whether to adjust granularity (corresponding to LBAs) of L2P table based on quantity of R/M/W operations to said LBAs. This subject matter is reflected in the following limitations of claim 1.
monitor, for each partition of the plurality of partitions, a quantity of read/modify/write (R/M/W) operations performed on LBAs corresponding thereto;
for each partition of the plurality of partitions, determine whether to adjust the granularity of the L2P table portion corresponding thereto based on the quantity of R/M/W operations performed thereon
Muthiah (US 20200379910) teaches upon (based on) determining that there are enough write commands received to determine a pattern, adjusting (adjust) FTL (L2P table) (which includes logical addresses (plurality of LBAs) and physical addresses (see Muthiah ¶[71])) granularity (value of a respective corresponding granularity) based on said pattern (see Muthiah abstract, Fig. 3, ¶[77-79]). However, Muthiah does not appear to explicitly teach that said adjusting of said FTL is based explicitly on quantity of read/modify/write operations. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over Muthiah.
Claim 9 is the method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1, and is allowable over prior art for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 17 recites, at least, determining to adjust granularity of a table based on pointer of a partition, corresponding to read command, having unaligned head/tail. This subject matter is reflected in the following limitations of claim 17.
receive a command associated with an LBA of a particular partition of the plurality of partitions;
determine whether a pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned head, wherein the partition utilizes the first table granularity;
determine whether the pointer corresponding to the particular partition has an unaligned tail;
responsive to determining that the pointer has an unaligned head or an unaligned tail, determine whether to adjust a table granularity of the particular partition from the first table granularity to a second table granularity that is different than the first table granularity
Muthiah (US 20200379910) teaches upon determining that there are enough write commands received to determine a pattern, adjusting (adjust) FTL (L2P table) (which includes logical addresses and physical addresses (see Muthiah ¶[71])) granularity between finer (first granularity) and coarser (second granularity) (see Muthiah abstract, Fig. 3, ¶[77-79]). However, Muthiah does not appear to explicitly teach that said adjusting of said FTL (with said logical addresses) (plurality of LBAs)) is based explicitly on said FTL having unaligned head/tail. Therefore, claim 7 is allowable over Muthiah.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also allowable over prior art for the same reasons as said above identified claims.
Additional Remarks
In the interest of compact prosecution, in order to overcome §112(a) written description, claim 16 should be amended to include claim 17.
Kan (US 20180101477) teaches changing (adjust) FTL table (L2P table), between full and partial (adjustable) loading, based on read/write LBA segment access counts reaching threshold (se Kan Fig. 5, ¶[52]). This appears relevant to claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIE YEW whose telephone number is (571)270-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/CHIE YEW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights