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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claims 1-10, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2012/0137107).
2. As per claim 1, Lee discloses a memory array comprising a memory space [figure 1]; a controller configured to set focus address ranges in the memory space based on a focus request from a host for hotness tracking [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1]; and one or more counters, comprising a counter configured to count memory accesses to a corresponding focus address range among the focus address ranges to generate a counted value, and provide the counted value to the host [decays counter corresponding to the address ranges 210, figure 2, paragraph 4].
3. As per claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive a memory address associated with a memory access, and increase the counted value generated by the counter [decays counter corresponding to the address ranges 210, figure 2, paragraph 4], in response to the memory address belonging to the corresponding focus address range [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1].
4. As per claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the controller comprises a reconfigurable address filter, and is further configured to set a filtering range of the reconfigurable address filter based on the focus address ranges [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1], and the reconfigurable address filter is configured to identify the corresponding focus address range to which the memory address belongs [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1].
5. As per claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the counter is configured to provide the counted value to the host based on a feedback request from the host [decays counter corresponding to the address ranges 210, figure 2, paragraph 4].
6. As per claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the feedback request comprises identification of the corresponding focus address range among the focus address ranges [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1].
7. As per claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the focus request comprises the focus address ranges [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1].
8. As per claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the focus address ranges are determined based on one or more of a hot page candidate and a cold page candidate managed by the host [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1].
9. As per claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the one or more of the hot page candidate and the cold page candidate are determined as a hot page and a cold page, respectively, based on counted values associated with the focus address ranges [hot/cold determination based on the decay count, paragraph 19].
10. As per claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the counter is configured to, in response to the counted value satisfying one or more feedback conditions, provide the counted value to the host [decays counter corresponding to the address ranges 210, figure 2, paragraph 4].
11. As per claim 10, Lee discloses wherein the one or more feedback conditions are determined based on one or more of a hot feedback threshold for a hot page and a cold feedback threshold for a cold page [threshold based management, paragraph 4].
12. As per claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the focus address ranges are set based on a memory policy of an application using the focus address ranges [the system managing the ranges, figure 1].
13. As per claim 15, Lee discloses wherein the memory device is a second-tier memory device distinct from a first-tier memory device of the host [storages for hot/cold data, figure 1].
14. As per claim 20, the examiner directs the applicant’s attention to claim 1 rejection above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
1. Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2012/0137107) in view of Chui et al. (US 2006/0041719), “Chui”.
2. As per claim 16, Lee discloses a host [figure 1]; set focus address ranges based on a focus request from the host for hotness tracking [transmitted address ranges for hot data identification, figure 1]; count memory accesses to a corresponding focus address range among the focus address ranges to determine a counted value of a counter; and provide the counted value to the host [decays counter corresponding to the address ranges 210, figure 2, paragraph 4].
Lee does not disclose expressly a first-tier memory device comprising a first memory space; and a second-tier memory device comprising a second memory space and having a slower processing speed than the first-tier memory device.
Chui discloses such tiered storage system in figure 2.
Lee and Chui are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of storage device management.
Before the effective filing of the application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by including the tiered storage system as taught by Chui in figure 2.
The motivation for doing so would have been system performance improvement as expressly taught by Chui in paragraph 25.
3. As per claims 17-19, the examiner directs the applicant’s attention to claims rejection above.
Conclusion
A. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 are objected to.
The closest prior art of record, “Lee” discloses hotness tracking in figure 2.
The primary reasons for allowance of claim 11 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “wherein the controller is further configured to set sub-address ranges within the corresponding focus address range by reducing a size of the corresponding focus address range, and provide counted values of the sub-address ranges to the host”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
The primary reasons for allowance of claim 13 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “wherein the controller is configured to, in response to a cold page being stored in the memory space due to demotion, set a cold focus address range corresponding to the cold page to evaluate suitability of the demotion, and to provide a counted value associated with memory accesses to the cold focus address range to the host”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's response must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and § 707.07(a) of the MPEP.
B. Claims Rejected
Claims 1-10 and 14-20 are rejected.
C. Direction for Future Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Vo can be reached on (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.
/JAE U YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights