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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “based on the power mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
- For examination purposes, the “power mode” will be interpreted as a state or mode defined in some manner by the amount of power required or consumed while operating in that power mode.
Claim 3 recites “to receive setting information on the power mode from the outside”. The term “from the outside” is indefinite as it is unclear outside of what (the controller, the external device (e.g. host), etc.) the setting information is received from.
Claim 20 recites “from an outside” and “from the outside”, similar to claim 3. This claim language is indefinite for similar reasoning as discussed above.
- For examination purposes, the “from the outside” limitation of claims 3 and 20 will be interpreted as from outside of the storage device.
Claim 20 further recites, “a history that has entered the low power mode by satisfying a low power mode entry condition without receiving of the low power mode entry request”. This recitation does not specify what has entered the low power mode. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to clearly recite that the storage device is the component that the history is referring to as discussed in paragraph [0009] of the specification; “a history of the storage device entering the low-power mode by satisfying a low-power mode entry condition”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0103222.
Per Claim 1, Tseng discloses:
a storage device (storage device 10), comprising:
a memory for storing data (rewriteable non-volatile memory module 43);
and a controller (memory control circuit unit 42)
communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to control the memory for at least one of inputting or outputting of the data (Paragraph 33)
by determining whether to activate at least one of a plurality of low power mode delay techniques (Paragraphs 61-66; The memory storage device 10 may switch between a normal mode and a power saving mode based on a plurality of operation modes. Each of the operation modes comprise their own “waiting time” which represents an amount of time before the memory storage device enters the power saving mode of the respective operation mode.)
based on the power mode (Paragraph 61 introduces the operation modes. Paragraph 85 equates a first operation mode with a mode that avoids unnecessary power consumption. This meets the interpretation outlined above with respect to the claimed “power mode”. Paragraph 93 further discusses operation modes in reference to power states.).
Per Claim 20, Tseng discloses:
a storage device for processing data (storage device 10),
wherein the storage device is configured to determine whether to delay an entry into a low power mode (Paragraphs 61-66; The memory storage device 10 may switch between a normal mode and a power saving mode based on a plurality of operation modes. Each of the operation modes comprise their own “waiting time” which represents an amount of time before the memory storage device enters the power saving mode of the respective operation mode.)
based on at least one of
a history of receiving a low power mode entry request received from an outside,
a history that has entered the low power mode by satisfying a low power mode entry condition without receiving of the low power mode entry request,
and a history of receiving a command from the outside (Paragraphs 66-67; The waiting time can be dynamically adjusted according to a current/practical need. This reads on the claimed “history of receiving a command from the outside” as a command/instruction history of reads/writes from the host (See Paragraph 54)).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2025/0103222 in view of Wang et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2024/0289017.
Per Claim 3, Tseng discloses the storage device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to receive information from the outside (Paragraph 43, Figure 5; Host interface 52 is coupled to memory management circuit 51 of the memory control circuit unit 42 and is configured to receive and identify instructions and data transmitted by the host system 11. Paragraph 66; The memory management circuit 51 may dynamically decide to operate the memory storage device 10 in the first operation mode or the second operation mode according to a current need.).
Tseng does not specifically teach that the instructions/data transmitted by the host system 11 to the storage device 10 are directly related to setting information regarding the power mode.
However, Wang, of a possible common inventive entity as Tseng since Figures 1-6 and many teachings of each reference are identical, teaches that memory storage device 10 receives a performance match command (CMD) from host system 11. The CMD comprises performance requirement information for configuring the memory storage device 10, including power consumption setting information (paragraphs 51-53, 63, and 64, Figures 7 and 8).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the information “from the outside” of Tseng to include performance/power related setting information, as taught by Wang, because it allows for dynamically adjusting the memory storage device to meet the requirements of the host system to improve the operating performance and avoid compatibility problems between the memory storage device and the host system (Wang, Paragraph 65).
Per Claim 13, Tseng discloses a method for operating a storage device (storage device 10), comprising: receiving information at the storage device (Paragraph 43, Figure 5; Host interface 52 is coupled to memory management circuit 51 of the memory control circuit unit 42 and is configured to receive and identify instructions and data transmitted by the host system 11. Paragraph 66; The memory management circuit 51 may dynamically decide to operate the memory storage device 10 in the first operation mode or the second operation mode according to a current need.); and determining whether to activate at least one of a plurality of low power mode delay techniques (Paragraphs 61-66; The memory storage device 10 may switch between a normal mode and a power saving mode based on a plurality of operation modes. Each of the operation modes comprise their own “waiting time” which represents an amount of time before the memory storage device enters the power saving mode of the respective operation mode.) based on the power mode (Paragraph 61 introduces the operation modes. Paragraph 85 equates a first operation mode with a mode that avoids unnecessary power consumption. This meets the interpretation outlined above with respect to the claimed “power mode”. Paragraph 93 further discusses operation modes in reference to power states.).
Tseng does not specifically teach that the instructions/data transmitted by the host system 11 to the storage device 10 are directly related to setting information regarding the power mode.
However, Wang, of a possible common inventive entity as Tseng since Figures 1-6 and many teachings of each reference are identical, teaches that memory storage device 10 receives a performance match command (CMD) from host system 11. The CMD comprises performance requirement information for configuring the memory storage device 10, including power consumption setting information (paragraphs 51-53, 63, and 64, Figures 7 and 8).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the information “from the outside” of Tseng to include performance/power related setting information, as taught by Wang, because it allows for dynamically adjusting the memory storage device to meet the requirements of the host system to improve the operating performance and avoid compatibility problems between the memory storage device and the host system (Wang, Paragraph 65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 2 and 14, no combination of Tseng and the prior art teach or make obvious the three claimed low-power mode delay techniques and their respective requirements for determining whether to delay entry into a low-power mode.
With respect to claim 4, no combination of Tseng and the prior art teach or make obvious the normal and power saving modes of Tseng comprising a greater number of low power mode delay techniques activated in one of the normal or power saving modes being greater than the number of low power mode delay techniques activated for the other mode.
Claims 5-12 inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 2.
Claims 15-19 inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 14.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. 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).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights