DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “determining availability of a first storage element and a second storage element from a set of storage elements”, does not reasonably provide enablement for “identifying state information for the first stream, wherein the state information includes a first assignment state of the first stream relative to the first storage element and a second assignment state of the first stream relative to the second storage element; based on determining the availability of the first storage element and the second storage element, and based on identifying the state information for the first stream, assigning the first stream to the second storage element; and performing an operation on the first data by the second storage element”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claimed invention is explained in the specification by the example provided with figure 3. The specification pars. [0058] and [0059] explain that based on the ascending search pattern used for die scheduling, a first stream is assigned to D0, CH0 for programming first data 304a, die D0, CH1 is assigned for programming second data 304b, die D0, CH2 is assigned for programming third data 304c and so forth. However, the example fails to provide performance of the claimed first step “determining availability of first storage element “D0, CH0 ” and the second storage element “D0, CH1”. Assuming that both the storage elements are available for performing the operation on the first data 304a, the specification allocates storage element “D0, CH0” for first write data 304a without checking the state information for the first stream with respect to storage elements “D0, CH0” and “D0, CH1”. The specification further discloses that the second stream 306a-306c is depicted as having completed use of D0, CH0; D0, CH1 and D0, CH2. The second stream then trying to write data 306d and therefore determines the availability of the next storage element which is not currently busy handling an operation and does not have a write operation queued to it and finds storage elements D1, CH2; D1, CH3 and D2, CH0 and assigns operation of the second stream to identified storage elements. However, the specification again fails to identify state information of the second stream relative to the first storage element D1, CH2 and D1, CH3 and merely states that the second stream is assigned to D1, CH2; D1, CH3 and D2. Thus, the specification fails to provide guidance on the condition of determining the state of storage elements D0, CH0; D0, CH1 with respect to first write data 304a of the first stream or without determining state information of the state of the second stream with respect to storage D1, CH2; D1, CH3 and D2, CH0. The dependent claim 4, recites that both first storage element D1, CH2 and D1, CH3 are available for performing operation on the first data 306d then claim 5 recites the limitation that the first assignment state identifies processing second data of the second stream by first storage element. However, if the second data is processed by the first storage element then the first storage element is technically not available for performing operation on the first data. Thus, it is evident from the example provided for the practicing or making the invention, the step of identifying state information of the first/second stream with relative to the first and second storage element is not performed as claimed. Thus, as disclosed, the specification fails to provide enough guidance on the step of identifying the state information of the stream with respect to available first and second storage elements and therefore one having ordinary skill in the art will not be able make or use the invention as claimed.
The dependent claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the state information is based on a number of storage elements in the set of storage elements open to receive an assignment of the first stream. However, the specification fails to show the relationship between the state information and number of storage elements. For example, if four storage elements D1, CH2; D1, CH3; D2, CH0 and D2, CH1 are open to receive an assignment state of the second stream as explained with respect to figure 3 in the specification. However, it is unclear how number of storage elements 3 or 4 within the set determines the assignment state as first assignment state relative to the first storage element and the second assignment state with respect to the second storage element because according to the first condition only the availability of the first and second storage element is determined and therefore the specification fails to provide guidance on having more than 2 (e.g., first and second) storage elements affects the assignment states of the stream with respect to the first and second storage elements.
The dependent claims fail to cure the deficiency of the rejected parent claims 1 and 14 and thus rejected under same rationales as applied to rejected parent claims.
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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The independent claims 1 and 14 recite the limitation “based on determining the availability of the first storage element and the second storage element and based on identifying the state information for the first stream”. The limitation is functional and introduces conditional ambiguity. The claims recite the first condition determining availability of the first and second storage elements, however, it is not clear what condition is considered as applicable whether both storage elements are available or at least one of first or second storage element is available? The claims further recite the limitation of determining state information. However, it is unclear what specific values or conditions within the state information trigger the assignment to the second storage element instead of the first storage element if both storage elements are available as indicated by the dependent claim 4. The claims also recite the limitation “a first assignment state relative to the first storage element and the second storage element”. The term “relative” is vague and indefinite. Does it mean that the stream is assigned to the first and second storage elements? Or are the first and second storage elements capable of being assigned to the first stream?
Claims also recite the limitation “determining availability of a first storage element and a second storage element” and then second limitation “identifying state information for first stream, wherein the state information includes a first assignment state of the first stream relative to first storage element and a second assignment state of the first stream relative to second storage element”. According to first conditional statement the claim determines availability of the storage elements, which means either both storage elements are available (limitation of claim 4) or one of the storage element is available or none of the storage elements are available. Then it determines state information, where the first state indicates that the first storage element is processing of second data of the first stream (claim 5). The question arises here that if the first storage element is processing second data then the first storage element is not available for assignment to perform operation on the first data. The dependent claim 4 recites the limitation “determining availability includes determining that the first storage element and the second storage element are available for performing the operation”. Therefore, according to BRI, the limitation “determining availability” in claim 1 has any outcome, both storage elements available, only first storage element is available, only second storage element is available and none of the storage elements are available. Thus, rendering the limitation “identifying state information” indefinite and vague.
Claims 11 and 20 recite the limitations “receiving a second stream and identifying the storage element for the second stream”. These limitations are vague and indefinite. Claims 11 and 20 depend from claims 1 and 14 and claims recite the limitation “assigning the first stream to the second storage element”, which mean when the second stream is received and the availability is checked as first step of the independent claims 1 and 14, the identifying of the availability of the second element for the second stream is not possible.
The dependent claims fail to cure the deficiency of the rejected parent claims and therefore the dependent claims are also rejected under same rationales as applied to the rejected parent claims.
No prior arts rejection was applied to the claims due to the ambiguities set forth above.
Brown (US 2020/0104074) teaches a method of allocating write stripe (stream) to idle dies and skipping busy dies (Brown: figs. 2, 3, 4).
Subbarao (US 2021/0373812) teaches a method to assign streams to available dies to mitigate die collision (fig. 6).
Lai et al. (US 2022/0197543) teaches a method of assigning channels of a storage device for stream data writing based available status of the channel.
Henze (US 10,922,014) teaches a method for assigning a unique die access order to each of the streams to minimize die collision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAUSHIKKUMAR M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Tim T Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
Kaushikkumar M. Patel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
/Kaushikkumar M Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
