DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is based on application 19/279,786 filed 24 July 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered below.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 24 July 2025 and 10 February 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶[0001] identifies the divisional application by application number. Now that a patent has issued, the divisional application should be updated to be identified by patent number (US Patent 12,373,121).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are the “capacity control module” configured to perform the following functions:
“to track trend of memory usage over a predetermined period of time” – Claim 3
“to schedule a channel rebalancing management operation or a block rebalancing management operation” – Claim 5
“to provide the determination on the additional channels and a determination on switching the memory device between single level cell (SLC) memory and multilevel cell (MLC) memory independently” – Claim 10
¶[0036] recites “The system 200 includes a storage controller 202 having a capacity control module 204.” while Fig. 2 labels ‘204’ as a ‘capacity controller’. Thus, the Office interprets the ‘capacity controller’ providing the “means” for performing the claimed functions above.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to due to informalities:
Claim 2: The claim is directed to “turn on at least a second channel of the total number of channels”. The Office recommends using a better adjective than ‘second’ since the claim is not also directed to ‘a first channel’; however, the claim is directed to ‘a second number of channels’ which may be confusing to a limitation directed to ‘at least a second channel’.
Claim 4: The limitation “wherein the controller is configured to metadata is grouped together to form a metablock” does not make grammatical sense. Suggested amendment: “wherein the controller is configured to group metadata together to form a metablock”.
Claim 8: Lack of antecedent basis of the term ‘the first channel’
Claim 9: Lack of antecedent basis of the term “the turning on or turning off channels”. While channels may be determined to be turned on or off, antecedence is not provided for the act as recited.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-5 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Patent Eligibility is determined as set forth under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidelines (see MPEP § 2106). The analysis of the claims in view of the guidelines are presented below.
Claim 1:
Regarding Step 1, the claim is directed to a device (or machine/manufacture). Thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim includes the following limitations:
A data storage device, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels;
turn off a second number of channels of the total number of channels;
detect an actual use of memory; and
determine whether additional channels of the total number of channels should be turned on or off.
The Office submits the underlined portions above recite a judicial exception.
The underlined portions of Limitations (4), (6), and (7) are directed to controlling an amount of available memory. Limitation (4) is directed to performing a prediction {or making a judgement} of an amount of memory that is needed and determining {or observing} whether the amount of memory needed is coupled to a certain number of channels. Limitation (6) is directed to ‘detect’ {or observing} an amount of use of memory, and Limitation (7) is directed to determining {or making a judgement} as to whether channels should be enabled/disabled. The Office further notes the claim is merely directed to predicting, detecting, and determining without actually performing any actions that result in a change of the computer system to realize any improvement. The Office asserts merely determining whether additional channels should be turned on or off, by itself, fails to recite any improvement of the system because merely making the determination does not require the determination to be implemented, and without implementing the determination any sort of change or improvement of the system is not realized. Enumerated groups of abstract ideas include “Mental Processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The Office has determined Limitations (4), (6), and (7) fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The Office has determined the claim recites a judicial exception requiring further analysis in Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea of the claim, the claim further recites the following additional elements:
A data storage device, comprising:
a memory device; and
a controller coupled to the memory device, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels;
turn off a second number of channels of the total number of channels;
detect an actual use of memory; and
determine whether additional channels of the total number of channels should be turned on or off.
Limitations (2) and (3) recite the data storage device comprises a memory device and a controller (with the controller including a capacity control module and a plurality of channels used to couple to a die of the memory device). The Office asserts that the claimed additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements comprise practicing the invention by a generic or off-the-shelf storage device. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the memory does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitation (5) is directed to turning off a number of channels. The limitation is not further directed to any contingency or basis for performing the act; there is no claimed reason for performing the act and no claimed relationship exists in performing the act in conjunction with the identified abstract idea. As such, the Office asserts the additional element does not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the Office has determined that the noted additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application requiring further analysis in Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates the additional elements of the claim to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. As noted in the analysis of Step 2A Prong 2, the Office has determined those additional elements.
Regarding Limitations (2) and (3), the additional elements of the data storage device comprising a memory device and controller are recited at a high-level of generality such that they merely constitute generic computing elements. Thus, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Limitation (5) directed to turning off a number of channels, the Office asserts, for reasons presented in the analysis of the limitation in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional element does not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim 13
Regarding Step 1, the claim is directed to a device (or machine/manufacture). Thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim includes the following limitations:
A data storage device. comprising:
a memory device, and
a controller coupled to the memory device, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels, wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; and
schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises:
opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels;
after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; and
converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity
The Office submits the underlined portions above recite a judicial exception.
The underlined portions of Limitation (4) are directed to controlling an amount of available memory. Limitation (4) is directed to performing a prediction {or making a judgement} of an amount of memory that is needed and determining {or observing} whether the amount of memory needed is coupled to a certain number of channels. Enumerated groups of abstract ideas include “Mental Processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The Office has determined Limitation (4) falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The Office has determined the claim recites a judicial exception requiring further analysis in Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea of the claim, the claim further recites the following additional elements:
A data storage device. comprising:
a memory device, and
a controller coupled to the memory device, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels, wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; and
schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises:
opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels;
after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; and
converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity
Limitations (2) and (3) recite the data storage device comprises a memory device and a controller (with the controller including a capacity control module and a plurality of channels used to couple to a die of the memory device). The Office asserts that the claimed additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements comprise practicing the invention by a generic or off-the-shelf storage device. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the memory does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitation (5) comprise the additional elements of “schedule a rebalancing management operation…” with Limitations (6) through (8) including acts that comprise the rebalancing management operation. The Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Limitations (5) through (8) do not require the rebalancing management operation (or the associated acts that comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office further asserts no claimed improvement in the functioning of a computer is realized by applicant’s invention by merely ‘scheduling’ the improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the Office has determined that the noted additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application requiring further analysis in Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates the additional elements of the claim to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. As noted in the analysis of Step 2A Prong 2, the Office has determined those additional elements.
Regarding Limitations (2) and (3), the additional elements of the data storage device comprising a memory device and controller are recited at a high-level of generality such that they merely constitute generic computing elements. Thus, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Limitations (5) through (8) directed to ‘scheduling’, the Office asserts, for reasons presented in the analysis of the limitation in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim 20
Regarding Step 1, the claim is directed to a device (or machine/manufacture). Thus, the claim is directed to one of the four categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim includes the following limitations:
A data storage device. comprising:
a means to store data, and
a controller coupled to the means to store data, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the means to store data, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels, wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the means to store data is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; and
schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises:
opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels;
after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity;
converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity;
determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and
based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance:
close at least one of the one or more additional channels; and
convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory,
wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
The Office submits the underlined portions above recite a judicial exception.
The underlined portions of Limitation (4) are directed to controlling an amount of available memory. Limitation (4) is directed to performing a prediction {or making a judgement} of an amount of memory that is needed and determining {or observing} whether the amount of memory needed is coupled to a certain number of channels. Enumerated groups of abstract ideas include “Mental Processes” (MPEP 2106.04(a)). The Office has determined Limitation (4) falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas as the limitations may practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The Office has determined the claim recites a judicial exception requiring further analysis in Prong 2.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea of the claim, the claim further recites the following additional elements:
A data storage device. comprising:
a means to store data, and
a controller coupled to the means to store data, wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels, wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the means to store data, and wherein the controller is configured to:
predict that an amount of memory that is needed is coupled to a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels, wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the means to store data is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; and
schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises:
opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels;
after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity;
converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity;
determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and
based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance:
close at least one of the one or more additional channels; and
convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory,
wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
Limitations (2) and (3) recite the data storage device comprises ‘means to store data’ (or a memory) and a controller (with the controller including a capacity control module and a plurality of channels used to couple to a die of the memory device). The Office asserts that the claimed additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements comprise practicing the invention by a generic or off-the-shelf storage device. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the memory does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Limitation (5) comprise the additional elements of “schedule a rebalancing management operation…” with Limitations (6) through (13) including acts that comprise the rebalancing management operation. The Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Limitations (5) through (13) do not require the rebalancing management operation (or the associated acts that comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office further asserts no claimed improvement in the functioning of a computer is realized by applicant’s invention by merely ‘scheduling’ the improvement. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, the Office has determined that the noted additional elements fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application requiring further analysis in Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates the additional elements of the claim to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept. As noted in the analysis of Step 2A Prong 2, the Office has determined those additional elements.
Regarding Limitations (2) and (3), the additional elements of the data storage device comprising ‘means to store data’ and controller are recited at a high-level of generality such that they merely constitute generic computing elements. Thus, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the identified abstract idea using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding Limitations (5) through (13) directed to ‘scheduling’, the Office asserts, for reasons presented in the analysis of the limitation in Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus is not patent eligible.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 1; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 2 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 1. Claim 2 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 2 further recites an additional element to turn on at least a second channel. Similar to the analysis of Claim 1’s Limitation (5), Claim 2 is not further directed to any contingency or basis for performing the act; there is no claimed reason for performing the act and no claimed relationship exists in performing the act in conjunction with the identified abstract idea. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the additional element does not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 3
Beyond the analysis of parent Claim 1, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 3 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 3 is directed to track (or observe) memory usage trending over time. The Office has determined that the limitation further falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping as the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not comprise any additional elements requiring analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 4
Beyond the analysis of parent Claim 1, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 4 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 4 is directed to group metadata together and associating the metadata with each channel (the grouping and associating metadata similar to making a judgement of the data). The Office has determined that the limitation further falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping as the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not comprise any additional elements requiring analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 1; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 5 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 1. Claim 5 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 5 further recites an additional element to schedule additional operations. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 5’s limitation does not require the additional operations to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office further asserts no claimed improvement in the functioning of a computer is realized by applicant’s invention by merely ‘scheduling’ the operations which may lead to an improvement. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 1; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 9 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 1. Claim 9 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 9 further recites an additional element that turning on or turning off channels happens in the background. Similar to the analysis of Claim 1’s Limitation (5), Claim 9 is not further directed to any contingency or basis for performing the act; there is no claimed reason for performing the act and no claimed relationship exists in performing the act in conjunction with the identified abstract idea. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the additional element does not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 10
Beyond the analysis of parent Claim 1, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 10 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 10 is directed to providing the determination recited in Claim 1’s Limitation (7) and making a switching determination independently. Similar to the analysis of Claim 1’s Limitation (7), the Office asserts merely making the determinations do not require the determinations to be implemented, and without implementing the determinations, any sort of change or improvement of the system is not realized. The Office has determined that the limitation further falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping as the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not comprise any additional elements requiring analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 11
Beyond the analysis of parent Claim 1, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 11 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 11 is directed to limiting the predicting of Claim 1’s Limitation (4) to be based on a particular algorithm. The Office has determined that the limitation further falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping as the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not comprise any additional elements requiring analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 1; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 12 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 1. Claim 12 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 12 further recites an additional element that turning on or turning off channels happens in the background. Similar to the analysis of Claim 1’s Limitation (5), Claim 12 is not further directed to any contingency or basis for performing the act; there is no claimed reason for performing the act and no claimed relationship exists in performing the act in conjunction with the identified abstract idea. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the additional element does not amount to more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 14
Beyond the analysis of parent Claim 13, the additional limitations incorporated into Claim 14 have been found to further limit the identified abstract idea of the parent claim. Claim 14 is directed to defining the threshold used in the prediction of Claim 13’s Limitation (4). The Office has determined that the limitation further falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping as the limitation can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not comprise any additional elements requiring analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 13; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 15 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 13. Claim 15 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 15 further recites an additional element that further limits the rebalancing management operation. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 15’s limitation does not require the rebalancing management operation (nor the acts which comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 15; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 16 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 15. Claim 16 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 16 further recites an additional element that further limits the rebalancing management operation. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 16’s limitation does not require the rebalancing management operation (nor the acts which comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 13; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 17 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 13. Claim 17 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 17 further recites an additional element that further limits the rebalancing management operation. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 17’s limitation does not require the rebalancing management operation (nor the acts which comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 13; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 18 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 13. Claim 18 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 18 further recites an additional element that further limits the rebalancing management operation. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 18’s limitation does not require the rebalancing management operation (nor the acts which comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites a limitation beyond that recited in parent Claim 13; the limitation is not found to further the identified “Mental Process” identified in parent claim. However, Claim 19 is further directed to a judicial exception due to the identified “Mental Process” of Claim 13. Claim 19 comprises additional elements requiring further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 19 further recites an additional element that further limits the rebalancing management operation. Similar to the analysis of Claim 13’s Limitation (5), the Office asserts the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 19’s limitation does not require the rebalancing management operation (nor the acts which comprise the rebalancing management operation) to be executed; thus, the Office asserts no actual change or modification is realized in performing the ‘scheduling’. The Office asserts the additional element fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the additional element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIVASANKARAN et al (US PGPub 2018/0173619) in further view of WILLIAMS et al (US PGPub 2012/0226854) and KAUSHIK et al (US PGPub 2021/0034278).
With respect to Claim 1, SIVASANKARAN discloses a data storage device (Fig 1, Storage Device 120), comprising:
a memory device (Fig 1, Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x); and
a controller coupled to the memory device (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128), wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128 is connected to each Memory Channel 160-x via Connections 103; ¶[0035]), wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device (Fig 1 illustrates Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x), and wherein the controller is configured to:
a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels (¶[0016] – “some implementations described herein use scalable techniques of managing the storage of data in multiple memory channels … As memory storage needs increase, the memory capacity of a single storage device can be increased by adding one or more additional memory channels, and/or by adding more memory die to one or more of the memory channels”);
SIVASANKARAN may not explicitly disclose wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, predict that an amount of memory that is needed, turn off a second number of channels of the total number of channels; detect an actual use of memory; and determine whether additional channels of the total number of channels should be turned on or off.
However, WILLIAMS discloses turn off a second number of channels of the total number of channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”) and determine whether additional channels of the total number of channels should be turned on or off (¶[0039] – “if the amount of host CPU capacity needed to perform the IOPS for expander 341 is reduced, there is more of the capacity available for performing IOPS in respect of expanders 342 and 344”).
SIVASANKARAN and WILLIAMS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN and WILLIAMS before him or her, to modify the connections of SIVASANKARAN to include expanders as taught by WILLIAMS. A motivation for doing so would have been to control the number of operations executed by the host CPU (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN and WILLIAMS to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN and WILLIAMS may not explicitly disclose wherein the controller includes a capacity control module, predict that an amount of memory that is needed; detect an actual use of memory.
However, KAUSHIK discloses wherein the controller includes a capacity control module (Fig 1, Storage Resource Capacity Modeling Framework 102 comprising Capacity Prediction Module 124), predict that an amount of memory that is needed (¶[0026] – “The capacity prediction module 124 is also configured to determine an overall storage resource capacity prediction based at least in part on a combination of the selected subset of the model-specific storage resource capacity predictions”); detect an actual use of memory (¶[0024] – “The historical storage resource utilization data may be obtained by monitoring the storage systems 106, from a database or data store associated with the storage systems 106, etc”).
SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of SIVASANKARAN and WILLIAMS to include capacity monitoring as taught by KAUSHIK. A motivation for doing so would have been to enable dynamic allocation of storage resources to users to ensure that available storage resources in the storage pools do not run out (¶[0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the controller is configured to turn on at least a second channel of the total number of channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
KAUSHIK further discloses wherein the capacity control module is configured to track trend of memory usage over a predetermined period of time (¶[0060] – ” The ensemble storage resource capacity prediction may also or alternatively include a forecast of storage resource capacity utilization over a designated time period”).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
SIVASANKARAN further discloses wherein the controller is configured to metadata is grouped together to form a metablock, and wherein the metablock is defined per channel of the plurality of channels (Fig 2B Memory 206 comprises L2P Lookup Module 242; ¶[0048] – “Memory channels 160 each store an L2P lookup table 242. The L2P lookup table 242 in each memory channel 160 stores address mapping information for mapping logical address into physical addresses in that memory channel”).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
KAUSHIK further discloses wherein the capacity control module is configured to schedule a channel rebalancing management operation or a block rebalancing management operation (¶[0027] – “The storage resource provisioning module 126 is configured to modify a provisioning of storage resources of the storage systems 106 based at least in part on the overall storage resource capacity prediction”).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
KAUSHIK further discloses wherein the controller is configured to relocate data from a memory location corresponding to the first channel to a memory location corresponding to a different channel in response to the determining (¶[0030] – “the remedial measure may include migrating data stored in a set of provisioned storage resources in response to an alert or notification (e.g., from a first set of storage systems to a second set of storage systems, where the first and second sets of storage systems may have different performance characteristics, capacity, etc.”).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the controller is configured to turn on or turn off channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”) in response to the determining (¶[0039] – “if the amount of host CPU capacity needed to perform the IOPS for expander 341 is reduced, there is more of the capacity available for performing IOPS in respect of expanders 342 and 344”).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 7.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the turning on or turning off channels occurs at a predetermined period of time (¶[0043] – “In some cases, the system could actually be used in such a way that when originally provided to a user or customer, some of the PHYs can be disabled thus providing for the expander in question and the corresponding connected disk drives a reduced level of performance. The user would then be able to increase the performance by use of a software key or licence which can be purchased and sold separately. Hence, an entirely flexible storage system is provided”).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the turning on or turning off channels occurs as a background operation (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”).
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK may not explicitly disclose wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than one-third of the total capacity of the memory device during a predetermined period of time.
However, WILLIAMS states at ¶[0030] that “Examples of such remedial measures may include altering the provisioning of storage resources for a particular user. This may include provisioning or allocating additional storage resources to a particular user (e.g., in response to a notification or alert indicating that the currently provisioned storage resource capacity for the user will be exceeded at some designated time, or that the amount of available or free storage resources allocated to the user will fall below some designated threshold, etc.” which at least suggests WILLIAMS may be configured to trigger the allocation of additional resources at a particular threshold. As such, with the suggestions asserted by WILLIAMS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify WILLIAMS’s explicit teachings such that “predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than one-third of the total capacity of the memory device during a predetermined period of time” with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so is to ensure that available storage resources in the storage pools do not run out to the particular user (¶[0002]).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the turning off the second number of channels of the total number of channels occurs as a background operation (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIVASANKARAN in further view of KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA et al (US PGPub 2013/0308392).
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK disclose the data storage device of claim 1.
WILLIAMS discloses wherein the capacity control module is configured to provide the determination on the additional channels (¶[0039] – “if the amount of host CPU capacity needed to perform the IOPS for expander 341 is reduced, there is more of the capacity available for performing IOPS in respect of expanders 342 and 344”)
SIVASANKARAN, WILLIAMS, and KAUSHIK may not explicitly disclose a determination on switching the memory device between single level cell (SLC) memory and multilevel cell (MLC) memory independently.
However, NISHIJIMA discloses a determination on switching the memory device between single level cell (SLC) memory and multilevel cell (MLC) memory independently (¶[0172] – “when larger storage capacity is necessary in the case of using memory cells 120 as single-level cells, the memory cells 120 need to change to a multi-level cell mode on a block basis” – the determinations are ‘independent’ since the criteria for making the determinations may be different e.g. IOPS vs capacity needs).
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA before him or her, to modify the memories of the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS to include converting from SLC to MLC as taught by NISHIJIMA. A motivation for doing so would have been to increase storage capacity when necessary (¶[0172]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIVASANKARAN in further view of KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA.
With respect to Claim 13, SIVASANKARAN discloses a data storage device (Fig 1, Storage Device 120). comprising:
a memory device (Fig 1, Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x), and
a controller coupled to the memory device (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128), wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128 is connected to each Memory Channel 160-x via Connections 103; ¶[0035]), wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the memory device (Fig 1 illustrates Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x), and wherein the controller is configured to:
a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels (¶[0016] – “some implementations described herein use scalable techniques of managing the storage of data in multiple memory channels … As memory storage needs increase, the memory capacity of a single storage device can be increased by adding one or more additional memory channels, and/or by adding more memory die to one or more of the memory channels”).
SIVASANKARAN may not explicitly disclose wherein the controller includes a capacity control module; predict that an amount of memory that is needed; wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; and schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels; after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; and converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity.
However, KAUSHIK discloses wherein the controller includes a capacity control module (Fig 1, Storage Resource Capacity Modeling Framework 102 comprising Capacity Prediction Module 124), predict that an amount of memory that is needed (¶[0026] – “The capacity prediction module 124 is also configured to determine an overall storage resource capacity prediction based at least in part on a combination of the selected subset of the model-specific storage resource capacity predictions”); wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the memory device is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time (¶[0030] -“Examples of such remedial measures may include altering the provisioning of storage resources for a particular user. This may include provisioning or allocating additional storage resources to a particular user (e.g., in response to a notification or alert indicating that the currently provisioned storage resource capacity for the user will be exceeded at some designated time, or that the amount of available or free storage resources allocated to the user will fall below some designated threshold, etc.”); and schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting (¶[0027] – “The storage resource provisioning module 126 is configured to modify a provisioning of storage resources of the storage systems 106 based at least in part on the overall storage resource capacity prediction”)
SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of SIVASANKARAN to include capacity monitoring as taught by KAUSHIK. A motivation for doing so would have been to enable dynamic allocation of storage resources to users to ensure that available storage resources in the storage pools do not run out (¶[0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels; after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; and converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity.
However, WILLIAMS discloses wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”);
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS before him or her, to modify the connections of the combination of SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK to include expanders as taught by WILLIAMS. A motivation for doing so would have been to control the number of operations executed by the host CPU (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; and converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity.
However, NISHIJIMA discloses wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: after opening the one or more additional channels (WILLIAMS at ¶[0043] discloses an initial configuration may include one or more additional channels allocated to a user), determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity (¶[0182] – “when the need for increasing the storage capacity of the memory device arises …”); and converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the memory device to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity (¶[0172] – “when larger storage capacity is necessary in the case of using memory cells 120 as single-level cells, the memory cells 120 need to change to a multi-level cell mode on a block basis”).
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA before him or her, to modify the memories of the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS to include converting from SLC to MLC as taught by NISHIJIMA. A motivation for doing so would have been to increase storage capacity when necessary (¶[0172]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 14, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 13.
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA may not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold is one-third of the total capacity of the memory device.
However, WILLIAMS states at ¶[0030] that “Examples of such remedial measures may include altering the provisioning of storage resources for a particular user. This may include provisioning or allocating additional storage resources to a particular user (e.g., in response to a notification or alert indicating that the currently provisioned storage resource capacity for the user will be exceeded at some designated time, or that the amount of available or free storage resources allocated to the user will fall below some designated threshold, etc.” which at least suggests WILLIAMS may be configured to trigger the allocation of additional resources at a particular threshold. As such, with the suggestions asserted by WILLIAMS, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken into consideration SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA’s explicit teachings and suggestions to have been able to modify WILLIAMS’s explicit teachings such that “wherein the threshold is one-third of the total capacity of the memory device” with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation for doing so is to ensure that available storage resources in the storage pools do not run out to the particular user (¶[0002]).
With respect to Claim 15, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 13.
KAUSHIK further discloses wherein the rebalancing management operation further comprises, after opening the one or more additional channels, rebalancing data across all opened channels of the plurality of channels (¶[0030] – “the remedial measure may include migrating data stored in a set of provisioned storage resources in response to an alert or notification (e.g., from a first set of storage systems to a second set of storage systems, where the first and second sets of storage systems may have different performance characteristics, capacity, etc.”).
With respect to Claim 16, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 15.
KAUSHIK further discloses wherein rebalancing data across all opened channels comprises rewriting parts of already written memory from the first number of channels to the one or more additional channels (¶[0030] – “the remedial measure may include migrating data stored in a set of provisioned storage resources in response to an alert or notification (e.g., from a first set of storage systems to a second set of storage systems, where the first and second sets of storage systems may have different performance characteristics, capacity, etc.”).
With respect to Claim 17, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 13.
WILLIAMS further discloses wherein the opening of one or more additional channels is prioritized over the converting (¶[0043] discloses an initial configuration may include one or more additional channels allocated to a user).
With respect to Claim 18, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 13.
NISHIJIMA further discloses wherein the converting is further based on a determination that all channels of the plurality of channels have been opened (¶[0172] – “when larger storage capacity is necessary in the case of using memory cells 120 as single-level cells, the memory cells 120 need to change to a multi-level cell mode on a block basis”).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIVASANKARAN in further view of KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN et al (US PGPub 2019/0065388).
With respect to Claim 19, the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA disclose the data storage device of claim 13.
WILLIAMS further discloses closing at least one of the one or more additional channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”);
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing management operation further comprises: determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the memory device is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and converting a portion of the MLC memory of the memory device to SLC memory.
However, CHRISTENSEN discloses wherein the rebalancing management operation further comprises: determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the memory device is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device (¶[0066] – “once free space is created, the MLC may then be converted back to SLC”); and converting a portion of the MLC memory of the memory device to SLC memory (Fig 5, Step 516 – Modify Cache Configuration; ¶[0067] – “this causes the memory device to reallocate MLC to SLC memory cells”).
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN before him or her, to modify the memories of the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA to include converting from MLC to SLC as taught by CHRISTENSEN. A motivation for doing so would have been to increase access performance and lower power usage to the memory since doing so are known benefits of operating the memory device in single-cell mode opposed to multi-level cell mode (¶[0018-0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
With respect to Claim 20, SIVASANKARAN discloses a data storage device (Fig 1, Storage Device 120). comprising:
a means to store data (Fig 1, Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x), and
a controller coupled to the means to store data (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128), wherein the controller includes a plurality of channels (Fig 1, Storage Device Controller 128 is connected to each Memory Channel 160-x via Connections 103; ¶[0035]), wherein each channel is coupled to at least one die of the means to store data (Fig 1 illustrates Memory Channel 160-x comprises NVM 140-x), and wherein the controller is configured to:
a first number of channels that is less than a total number of channels (¶[0016] – “some implementations described herein use scalable techniques of managing the storage of data in multiple memory channels … As memory storage needs increase, the memory capacity of a single storage device can be increased by adding one or more additional memory channels, and/or by adding more memory die to one or more of the memory channels”).
SIVASANKARAN may not explicitly disclose wherein the controller includes a capacity control module; predict that an amount of memory that is needed; wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the means to store data is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time; schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting, wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels; after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity; determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance: close at least one of the one or more additional channels; and convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory, wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
However, KAUSHIK discloses wherein the controller includes a capacity control module (Fig 1, Storage Resource Capacity Modeling Framework 102 comprising Capacity Prediction Module 124), predict that an amount of memory that is needed (¶[0026] – “The capacity prediction module 124 is also configured to determine an overall storage resource capacity prediction based at least in part on a combination of the selected subset of the model-specific storage resource capacity predictions”); wherein the predicting is based on determining that a percent usage of a total capacity of the means to store data is greater than a threshold during a predetermined period of time (¶[0030] -“Examples of such remedial measures may include altering the provisioning of storage resources for a particular user. This may include provisioning or allocating additional storage resources to a particular user (e.g., in response to a notification or alert indicating that the currently provisioned storage resource capacity for the user will be exceeded at some designated time, or that the amount of available or free storage resources allocated to the user will fall below some designated threshold, etc.”); and schedule a rebalancing management operation based on the predicting (¶[0027] – “The storage resource provisioning module 126 is configured to modify a provisioning of storage resources of the storage systems 106 based at least in part on the overall storage resource capacity prediction”).
SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK before him or her, to modify the controller of the combination of SIVASANKARAN to include capacity monitoring as taught by KAUSHIK. A motivation for doing so would have been to enable dynamic allocation of storage resources to users to ensure that available storage resources in the storage pools do not run out (¶[0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels; after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity; determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance: close at least one of the one or more additional channels; and convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory, wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
However, WILLIAMS discloses wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: opening one or more additional channels of the plurality of channels, and close at least one of the one or more additional channels (¶[0038] – “The processor 361 is arranged to control the PHYs 381 such that it is able to selectively enable or disable one or more of the channels 40 between the expander 341 and the hub expander 343”);
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS before him or her, to modify the connections of the combination of SIVASANKARAN and KAUSHIK to include expanders as taught by WILLIAMS. A motivation for doing so would have been to control the number of operations executed by the host CPU (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: after opening the one or more additional channels, determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity; converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity; determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance: convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory, wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
However, NISHIJIMA discloses wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: after opening the one or more additional channels (WILLIAMS at ¶[0043] discloses an initial configuration may include one or more additional channels allocated to a user), determine whether there is sufficient memory capacity (¶[0182] – “when the need for increasing the storage capacity of the memory device arises …”); and converting a portion of single level cell (SLC) memory of the means to store data to multilevel cell (MLC) memory based on a determination that there is insufficient memory capacity (¶[0172] – “when larger storage capacity is necessary in the case of using memory cells 120 as single-level cells, the memory cells 120 need to change to a multi-level cell mode on a block basis”).
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA before him or her, to modify the memories of the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS to include converting from SLC to MLC as taught by NISHIJIMA. A motivation for doing so would have been to increase storage capacity when necessary (¶[0172]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, and WILLIAMS may not explicitly disclose wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device; and based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance: convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory, wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels.
However, CHRISTENSEN discloses wherein the rebalancing operation comprises: determining that a current percent usage of the total capacity of the means to store data is negatively impacting a performance of the data storage device (¶[0066] – “once free space is created, the MLC may then be converted back to SLC”); based on determining that the current percent usage is negatively impacting the performance: convert a portion of the MLC memory of the means to store data to SLC memory, wherein the rebalancing operation prioritizes converting the portion of the MLC memory to SLC memory over closing the at least one of the one or more additional channels (Fig 5, Step 516 – Modify Cache Configuration; ¶[0067] – “this causes the memory device to reallocate MLC to SLC memory cells”).
SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of memory storage systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN before him or her, to modify the memories of the combination of SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, and NISHIJIMA to include converting from MLC to SLC as taught by CHRISTENSEN. A motivation for doing so would have been to increase access performance and lower power usage to the memory since doing so are known benefits of operating the memory device in single-cell mode opposed to multi-level cell mode (¶[0018-0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine SIVASANKARAN, KAUSHIK, WILLIAMS, NISHIJIMA, and CHRISTENSEN to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure teach similar processes for controlling memory channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T LOONAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6994. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/ERIC T LOONAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights