DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/271,612 has claims 1-25 pending in the application, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
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 11/25/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 13-14, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190324683 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20220121563 A1).
As per claim 1,
1. A memory system, comprising: one or more memory devices; and processing circuitry coupled with the one or more memory devices and configured to cause the memory system to: [Li teaches a system comprising a host and storage device comprising a controller (para. 21-24; fig. 1, 7 and associated paragraphs)] receive information indicating a validity of one or more pages of a first block of non-volatile memory cells; transfer first data from the first block to a second block of non-volatile memory cells in accordance with the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages, wherein the information indicating that the first data is valid; [Li teaches the host sending a defrag request comprising defrag operation command descriptor to a storage device controller, the command descriptor including a defrag bitmap indicating validity/invalidity of pages in a band (block) (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; figs. 1-3 and associated paragraphs), where the storage device controller may accordingly perform a defrag operation of relocating valid pages from a source band to one or more target bands (para. 58-61; figs. 5A-5B and associated paragraphs)]
While Li discloses marking a source band being ready for erasure after a defrag operation (para. 44), it does not explicitly recite removing invalid data in the source band and freeing the block. However, Kamran discloses:
remove second data from a second page of the first block in accordance with the information indicating that the second data is invalid; and designate the first block as a free block in accordance with transferring the first data and removing the second data. [Kamran teaches garbage collection/defragmentation operation to include copying valid block to another block and erasing the block having invalid data left to reclaim the block into a free block (para. 34, 44-46; figs. 1, 3-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45)
As per claim 2, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
2. The memory system of claim 1, wherein removing the second data from the second page of the first block comprises the processing circuitry configured to cause the memory system to: erase the second data, wherein the first block is designated as a free block in accordance with erasing the second data. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches erasing invalid data from a block subject to defragmentation/garbage collection and reclaiming the block into free blocks (Kamran: para. 34, 44-46)]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45)
As per claim 6, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
6. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive a vendor unique command prior to designating the first block as a free block, wherein the vendor unique command enables the memory system to designate the first block as a free block without receiving an unmap command, wherein the memory system designates the first block as a free block in accordance with receiving the vendor unique command. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection operation according to defrag command and freeing the block (see claim 1 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46); Li further teaches the defrag command to comprise vendor unique command (23-24, 42-44, 58), where Li in view of Kamran do not recite a requirement for using an unmap command in freeing the block]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45).
As per claim 7, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 6 as shown above and further teaches:
7. The memory system of claim 6, wherein the memory system designates the first block as a free block without receiving an unmap command for the second data that is indicated as invalid by the information. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection operation according to defrag command comprising a vendor unique command and freeing the block (see claims 1, 6 above; Li: para. 58-61, 23-24, 42-44, 58; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46), where Li in view of Kamran do not recite a requirement for using unmap command in freeing the block]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45).
As per claim 8, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
8. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive third data after designating the first block as a free block; and write the third data to the first block in response to receiving the third data. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing a defrag/garbage collection operation on a block involving relocating valid data to another block and erasing the block to provide for a free block (see claim 1 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46); Li and Kamran further teach host write command/requests (Li: para. 63; Kamran: para. 14) and writing data to a block following erasure of the block (Kamran: para. 34); where it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts, provided with the disclosures by Li and Kamran above, to provide for using a free block for accommodating host write commands being received in order to provide for improved space management and reduced data fragmentation]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45).
As per claim 9, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
9. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages of the first block is received as part of a vendor unique command. [Li as shown above teaches the host sending the command descriptor comprising the defrag bitmap indicating validity of pages in a band (block) via a vendor unique command (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; see claim 1 above)]
As per claim 10, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
10. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the first data is transferred to the second block and the second data is removed from the first block during a maintenance operation. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing a defrag/garbage collection operation on a block involving relocating valid data to another block and erasing invalid data (see claim 1 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46)]
As per claim 11, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
11. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: store the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages of the first block to a fourth block of non-volatile memory cells. [Li teaches the defrag bitmap can be stored in the host in addition to the being provided for storage on the storage device’s nonvolatile memory (para. 17-19, 24, 36, 58-59, 67)]
As per claim 13, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above and further teaches:
13. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the information is associated with a segment information table (SIT). [Li as shown above teaches the host sending a defrag request comprising defrag operation command descriptor to a storage device controller, the command descriptor including a defrag bitmap indicating validity of pages in a band (block) (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; figs. 1-3 and associated paragraphs), where the defrag bitmap may correspond to a segment information table; alternatively, invalidity table based on which the defrag bitmap is build may also correspond to the segment information table (Li: para. 32).]
As per claim 14,
14. A memory system, comprising: one or more memory devices; and processing circuitry coupled with the one or more memory devices and configured to cause the memory system to: [Li teaches a system comprising a host and storage device comprising a controller (para. 21-24; figs. 1, 7 and associated paragraphs)] receive information indicating a validity of one or more pages of a first block of non-volatile memory cells; transfer first data from the first block to a second block of non-volatile memory cells in accordance with the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages, wherein the information indicating that the first data is valid; [Li teaches the host sending a defrag request comprising defrag operation command descriptor to a storage device controller, the command descriptor including a defrag bitmap indicating validity/invalidity of pages in a band (block) (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; figs. 1-3 and associated paragraphs), where the storage device controller may accordingly perform a defrag operation of relocating valid pages from a source band to one or more target bands (para. 58-61; figs. 5A-5B and associated paragraphs)]
While Li discloses marking a source band being ready for erasure after a defrag operation (para. 44), it does not explicitly recite removing invalid data in the source band and freeing the block. However, Kamran discloses:
refrain from transferring second data stored to the first block of non-volatile memory cells in accordance with the information indicating the second data is invalid; and designate the first block as a free block in accordance with transferring the first data and refraining from transferring the second data. [Kamran teaches garbage collection/defragmentation operation to include copying valid block to another block (refraining from copying invalid data) and erasing the block having invalid data left to reclaim the block into a free block (para. 34, 44-46; figs. 1, 3-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45)
As per claim 17, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above and further teaches:
17. The memory system of claim 14, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive third data after designating the first block as a free block; and write the third data to the first block in response to receiving the third data. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing a defrag/garbage collection operation on a block involving relocating valid data to another block and erasing the block to provide for a free block (see claim 14 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46); Li and Kamran further teach host write command/requests (Li: para. 63; Kamran: para. 14) and writing data to a block following erasure of the block (Kamran: para. 34); where it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the arts, provided with the disclosures by Li and Kamran above, to provide for using a free block for accommodating host write commands being received in order to provide for improved space management and reduced data fragmentation]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45).
As per claim 18, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above and further teaches:
18. The memory system of claim 14, wherein the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages of the first block is received as part of a vendor unique command. [Li as shown above teaches the host sending the command descriptor comprising the defrag bitmap indicating validity of pages in a band (block) via a vendor unique command (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; see claim 14 above)]
As per claim 19, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above and further teaches:
19. The memory system of claim 14, wherein the first data is transferred to the second block during a maintenance operation. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing a defrag/garbage collection operation on a block involving relocating valid data to another block and erasing invalid data (see claim 14 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46)]
As per claim 20, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above and further teaches:
20. The memory system of claim 14, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: store the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages of the first block to a third block of non-volatile memory cells. [Li teaches the defrag bitmap can be stored in the host in addition to the being provided for storage on the storage device’s nonvolatile memory (para. 17-19, 24, 36, 58-59, 67)]
As per claim 22, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above and further teaches:
22. The memory system of claim 14, wherein the information is associated with a segment information table (SIT). [Li as shown above teaches the host sending a defrag request comprising defrag operation command descriptor to a storage device controller, the command descriptor including a defrag bitmap indicating validity of pages in a band (block) (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; figs. 1-3 and associated paragraphs), where the defrag bitmap may correspond to a segment information table; alternatively, invalidity table based on which the defrag bitmap is build may also correspond to the segment information table (Li: para. 32).]
As per claim 23,
23. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to: [Li teaches a system comprising a host and storage device comprising a controller (para. 21-24; figs. 1, 7 and associated paragraphs)] receive information indicating a validity of one or more pages of a first block of non-volatile memory cells; transfer first data from the first block to a second block of non-volatile memory cells in accordance with the information indicating the validity of the one or more pages, wherein the information indicating that the first data is valid; [Li teaches the host sending a defrag request comprising defrag operation command descriptor to a storage device controller, the command descriptor including a defrag bitmap indicating validity/invalidity of pages in a band (block) (para. 23-24, 31-32, 42-44, 16-19, 2-3; figs. 1-3 and associated paragraphs), where the storage device controller may accordingly perform a defrag operation of relocating valid pages from a source band to one or more target bands (para. 58-61; figs. 5A-5B and associated paragraphs)]
While Li discloses marking a source band being ready for erasure after a defrag operation (para. 44), it does not explicitly recite removing invalid data in the source band and freeing the block. However, Kamran discloses:
remove second data from a second page of the first block in accordance with the information indicating that the second data is invalid; and designate the first block as a free block in accordance with transferring the first data and removing the second data. [Kamran teaches garbage collection/defragmentation operation to include copying valid block to another block (refraining from copying invalid data) and erasing the block having invalid data left to reclaim the block into a free block (para. 34, 44-46; figs. 1, 3-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45).
As per claim 24, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 23 as shown above and further teaches:
24. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instructions to remove the second data from the second page of the first block are executable by the one or more processors to: erase the second data, wherein the first block is designated as a free block in accordance with erasing the second data. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches erasing invalid data from a block subject to defragmentation/garbage collection and reclaiming the block into free blocks (Kamran: para. 34, 44-46)]
Li and Kamran are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li with Kamran’s disclosures directed towards performing a defragmentation/garbage collection comprising moving valid data from a block, erasing the block, and reclaiming the block into a free block. Doing so would allow for a reclaiming of free space available for storage operations (Kamran: para. 34, 45)
Claims 3-4 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190324683 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20220121563 A1) in view of Chung et al. (KR 102062045 B1) in view of Agarwal et al. (US 20240295981 A1).
As per claim 3, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Chung discloses:
3. The memory system of claim 1, wherein removing the second data from the second page of the first block comprises the processing circuitry configured to cause the memory system to: transfer the second data to a third page of a third block, wherein the first block is designated as a free block in accordance with transferring the second data to the third page of the third block. [Chung teaches performing a garbage collection where valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data in a victim block are moved to a free block while less recently invalidated invalid data are erased for freeing the victim block (see translated reference attached: para. 93-94, 100-101, 28-29, 59-70, 79-80; figs. 2-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li, Kamran, and Chung are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran with Chung’s disclosures directed towards moving, during garbage collection for freeing a victim block, valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data to a free block. Doing so would allow support for improved data recovery as associated with the recently invalidated invalid data which is more likely to be subject to a data recovery operation (para. 75, 78, 101)
While Chung’s disclosure is not explicit with respect to specifying a separate third block for transferring the invalid data, Agarwal teaches:
of a third block; the third block [Agarwal provides for storing invalid version of data to a higher bit error rate partition having slow access (para. 56-59, 63; figs. 4, 9-10 and associated paragraphs)]
Li, Kamran, Chung, and Agarwal are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran in view of Chung with Agarwal’s disclosures directed towards storing invalid version of data to a slow access partition. Doing so would provide for improved system efficiency by storing invalid data in a cold partition and thereby freeing up space in less cold partitions for more important data (para. 63-64)
As per claim 4, Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung in view of Agarwal teaches claim 3 as shown above and further teaches:
4. The memory system of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: erase the second data from the third page of the third block after transferring the second data to the third page of the third block; and designate the third block as a free block in accordance with erasing the second data from the third page of the third block. [Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung in view of Agarwal as shown above teaches performing garbage collection for erasing less recently invalidated invalid data from a victim block for freeing the victim block while moving the more recently invalidated invalid data (see claim 3 above) and further teaches that a more recently invalidated invalid data may transition to a less recently invalidated data (Chun: para. 92-94, 100-101, 68; see claim 3 above), where a more recently invalidated invalid data so transitioned to a less recently invalidated valid data may be subject to erasure responsive to a garbage collection for freeing a block (third block) on which the data is located]
Li, Kamran, and Chung are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran with Chung’s disclosures directed towards moving, during garbage collection for freeing a victim block, valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data to a free block. Doing so would allow support for improved data recovery as associated with the recently invalidated invalid data which is more likely to be subject to a data recovery operation (para. 75, 78, 101)
While Chung’s disclosure is not explicit with respect to specifying a separate third block for transferring the invalid data, Agarwal teaches:
Li, Kamran, Chung, and Agarwal are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran in view of Chung with Agarwal’s disclosures directed towards storing invalid version of data to a slow access partition. Doing so would provide for improved system efficiency by storing invalid data in a cold partition and thereby freeing up space in less cold partitions for more important data (para. 63-64)
As per claim 25, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 23 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Chung discloses:
25. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 23, wherein the instructions to remove the second data from the second page of the first block are executable by the one or more processors to: transfer the second data to a third page of a third block, wherein the first block is designated as a free block in accordance with transferring the second data to the third page of the third block. [Chung teaches performing a garbage collection where valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data in a victim block are moved to a free block while less recently invalidated invalid data are erased for freeing the victim block (see translated reference attached: para. 93-94, 100-101, 28-29, 59-70, 79-80; figs. 2-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li, Kamran, and Chung are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran with Chung’s disclosures directed towards moving, during garbage collection for freeing a victim block, valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data to a free block. Doing so would allow support for improved data recovery as associated with the recently invalidated invalid data which is more likely to be subject to a data recovery operation (para. 75, 78, 101)
While Chung’s disclosure is not explicit with respect to specifying a separate third block for transferring the invalid data, Agarwal teaches:
of a third block; the third block [Agarwal provides for storing invalid version of data to a higher bit error rate partition having slow access (para. 56-59, 63; figs. 4, 9-10 and associated paragraphs)]
Li, Kamran, Chung, and Agarwal are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran in view of Chung with Agarwal’s disclosures directed towards storing invalid version of data to a slow access partition. Doing so would provide for improved system efficiency by storing invalid data in a cold partition and thereby freeing up space in less cold partitions for more important data (para. 63-64)
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190324683 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20220121563 A1) in view of Chung et al. (KR 102062045 B1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20240176521 A1; Kamran 2).
As per claim 5, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Chung discloses:
5. The memory system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive an unmap command after removing the second data from the second page of the first block, wherein designating the first block as the free block is in accordance with receiving the unmap command. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection for moving valid data from a block and erasing invalid data for freeing the block (see claim 1 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46); however, Chung teaches moving some invalid data with valid data, where Chun provides for performing a garbage collection where valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data in a victim block are moved to a free block while less recently invalidated invalid data remain in the victim block to be erased for freeing the victim block (see translated reference attached: para. 93-94, 100-101, 28-29, 59-70, 79-80; figs. 2-4 and associated paragraphs)]
Li, Kamran, and Chung are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the disclosures provided by Li in view Kamran with Chung’s disclosures directed towards moving, during garbage collection for freeing a victim block, valid data and more recently invalidated invalid data to a free block. Doing so would allow support for improved data recovery as associated with the recently invalidated invalid data which is more likely to be subject to a data recovery operation (para. 75, 78, 101)
Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung does not explicitly disclose, but Kamran 2 discloses:
receive an unmap command after… wherein designating the first block as the free block is in accordance with receiving the unmap command. [While Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung does not disclose using an unmap command in association with the erasure of the block, Kamran 2 provides for garbage collecting a zone by moving all valid content, and, responsive to an unmap command, performing erasure or freeing of the zone (para. 22)]
Li, Kamran, Chung, and Kamran 2 are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung and Kamran 2, to modify the disclosures by Li in view of Kamran in view of Chung to include disclosures by Kamran 2 since they both teach data storage and memory management, wherein Kamran 2 is directed towards improved SSD write performance and endurance (para. 22). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (performing garbage collection by moving valid data from a zone, and, responsive to an unmap command, performing erasure or freeing of the zone) to a known device (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid and recently invalidated data from a block and erasing the block to reclaim into a free block responsive to a host command) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid and recently invalidated data from a block, wherein, responsive to an unmap command, the block is erased and reclaimed in a free block; doing so would provide for improved data integrity by requiring an unmapped confirmation (command) prior to erasing the data in the block). MPEP 2143
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190324683 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20220121563 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20240176521 A1; Kamran 2).
As per claim 15, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Chung discloses:
15. The memory system of claim 14, wherein designating the first block as the free block comprises the processing circuitry configured to cause the memory system to: erase the second data from the first block in response to receiving an unmap command. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection for moving valid data from a block (refraining from copying invalid data) and erasing the block having invalid data left for freeing the block (see claim 14 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46); it does not explicitly disclose, but Kamran 2 provides for garbage collecting a zone by moving all valid content, and, responsive to an unmap command, performing erasure or freeing of the zone (para. 22)]
Li, Kamran, and Kamran 2 are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Li in view of Kamran and Kamran 2, to modify the disclosures by Li in view of Kamran to include disclosures by Kamran 2 since they both teach data storage and memory management, wherein Kamran 2 is directed towards improved SSD write performance and endurance (para. 22). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (performing garbage collection by moving valid data from a zone, and, responsive to an unmap command, performing erasure or freeing of the zone) to a known device (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid data from a block and erasing the block to reclaim into a free block responsive to a host command) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid data from a block, wherein, responsive to an unmap command, the block is erased and reclaimed in a free block; doing so would provide for improved data integrity by requiring an unmapped confirmation (command) prior to erasing the data in the block). MPEP 2143
As per claim 16, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 15 as shown above and further teaches:
16. The memory system of claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the memory system to: receive the unmap command after refraining from transferring the second data stored to the first block. [Li in view of Kamran in view of Kamran 2 as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection for moving valid data from a block (refraining from copying invalid data), and responsive to subsequently receiving an unmap command, erasing the block having invalid data left for freeing the block (see claim 15 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46; Kamran 2: para. 22)]
Li, Kamran, and Kamran 2 are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Li in view of Kamran and Kamran 2, to modify the disclosures by Li in view of Kamran to include disclosures by Kamran 2 since they both teach data storage and memory management, wherein Kamran 2 is directed towards improved SSD write performance and endurance (para. 22). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (performing garbage collection by moving valid data from a zone, and, responsive to an unmap command, performing erasure or freeing of the zone) to a known device (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid data from a block and erasing the block to reclaim into a free block responsive to a host command) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (performing defragmentation/garbage collection involving moving valid data from a block, wherein, responsive to an unmap command, the block is erased and reclaimed in a free block; doing so would provide for improved data integrity by requiring an unmapped confirmation (command) prior to erasing the data in the block). MPEP 2143
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20190324683 A1) in view of Kamran et al. (US 20220121563 A1) in view of Borcher (US 9558112 B1).
As per claim 12, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 1 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Borcher discloses:
12. The memory system of claim 1, wherein: the second data is valid to the memory system and invalid to a host system coupled with the memory system, and the information is received from the host system. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection operation according to defrag command comprising a host’s defrag bitmap indicating valid and invalid data (see claim 1 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46; see Li: para. 32 on the defrag bitmap being based on the host’s invalidity table); Borchers similarly discloses a host comprising a garbage collection control engine and indicating pages to be marked for deletion (invalid data), to be erased through garbage collection (col. 9, line 56 – col. 10, line 9; col. 10, lines 30-40; col. 11, line 41 – col. 12, line 12; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs); Borchers further teaches that, while the memory controller may mark pages for deletion according to a host command, the memory controller may maintain the marked pages as available for being read until deleted during garbage collection (col. 12, lines 53 – col. 13, line 9; fig. 4 and associated paragraphs), where the data determined by the memory controller for being available for read may correspond at least to being valid and accessible to the memory controller (see col. 10, lines 30-40 indicating valid data being available to be read)]
Li, Kamran, and Borcher are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Li in view of Kamran and Borcher, to modify the disclosures by Li in view of Kamran to include disclosures by Borcher since they both teach data storage and memory management, wherein Borcher is directed towards improved garbage collection efficiency (col. 11, lines 22-40; col. 12, lines 3-12). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (memory controller receiving host command for marking data for deletion through garbage collection; memory controller maintaining marked pages as available for read until deletion through garbage collection) to a known device (performing defragmentation/garbage collection pursuant to host-provided defrag bitmap indicating valid data for moving to another block and invalid data for erasure through defragmentation/garbage collection) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (performing defragmentation/garbage collection pursuant to host-provided defrag bitmap indicating valid data for moving to another block and invalid data for erasure through defragmentation/garbage collection, wherein storage controller may determine to maintain the invalid data as indicated by the host to be available to be read until their erasure through garbage collection; doing so would provide for a safeguard allowing access to data that may deem necessary to the controller even if considered invalid by the host). MPEP 2143
As per claim 21, Li in view of Kamran teaches claim 14 as shown above. It does not explicitly disclose, but Borcher discloses:
21. The memory system of claim 14, wherein: the second data is valid to the memory system and invalid to a host system coupled with the memory system, and the information is received from the host system. [Li in view of Kamran as shown above teaches performing defragmentation/garbage collection operation according to defrag command comprising a host’s defrag bitmap indicating valid and invalid data (see claim 14 above; Li: para. 58-61; Kamran: para. 34, 44-46; see Li: para. 32 on the defrag bitmap being based on the host’s invalidity table); Borchers similarly discloses a host comprising a garbage collection control engine and indicating pages to be marked for deletion (invalid data), to be erased through garbage collection (col. 9, line 56 – col. 10, line 9; col. 10, lines 30-40; col. 11, line 41 – col. 12, line 12; figs. 2-3 and associated paragraphs); Borchers further teaches that, while the memory controller may mark pages for deletion according to a host command, the memory controller may maintain the marked pages as available for being read until deleted during garbage collection (col. 12, lines 53 – col. 13, line 9; fig. 4 and associated paragraphs), where the data determined by the memory controller for being available for read may correspond at least to being valid and accessible to the memory controller (see col. 10, lines 30-40 indicating valid data being available to be read)]
Li, Kamran, and Borcher are analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor involving data storage and memory management.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having knowledge of Li in view of Kamran and Borcher, to modify the disclosures by Li in view of Kamran to include disclosures by Borcher since they both teach data storage and memory management, wherein Borcher is directed towards improved garbage collection efficiency (col. 11, lines 22-40; col. 12, lines 3-12). Therefore, it would be applying a known technique (memory controller receiving host command for marking data for deletion through garbage collection; memory controller maintaining marked pages as available for read until deletion through garbage collection) to a known device (performing defragmentation/garbage collection pursuant to host-provided defrag bitmap indicating valid data for moving to another block and invalid data for erasure through defragmentation/garbage collection) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (performing defragmentation/garbage collection pursuant to host-provided defrag bitmap indicating valid data for moving to another block and invalid data for erasure through defragmentation/garbage collection, wherein storage controller may determine to maintain the invalid data as indicated by the host to be available to be read until their erasure through garbage collection; doing so would provide for a safeguard allowing access to data that may deem necessary to the controller even if considered invalid by the host). MPEP 2143
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30-5:30.
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, JARED RUTZ can be reached at 571-272-5535. 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.
/E.Y.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2135
/JARED I RUTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights