20DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In response to Applicant’s claims filed on August 20, 2025, claims 1-20 are now pending for examination in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for priority to KR10-2024-0175824, filed 11/29/2024, under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f), and is also acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 14 and 19 contain limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as detailed in the following:
Claim 14:
“a packet manager configured to …”
“a garbage collection (GC) manager configured to …”
has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “manager” coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function and equivalents thereof. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 19:
“the GC manager is configured to …”
has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “manager” coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function and equivalents thereof. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 14 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 19 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: NONE. The specification fails to show the corresponding structures of the components.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 and 19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Claim(s) 14 and 19 is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (see above). Claim(s) 14 and 19 contain placeholders that require corresponding structure(s). It is unclear whether the recited structure, material, or acts in these claims are sufficient for performing the claimed function because the Specification is unclear about the corresponding structure(s). The figures do not provide indications of corresponding structure(s).
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 15-18 and 20 is/are also rejected for inheriting the deficiencies of the independent & dependent claims from which they depend on.
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 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter 2019 PEG.
Step 1. In accordance with Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the system and methods of claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one of the 2019 PEG, it is noted that the independent claims recite an abstract idea falling within the Mental Process & Mathematical Concepts enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. Examiner is of the position that independent claims 1, 6, and 14 are directed towards the Mathematical Concepts and Mental Process Grouping of Abstract Ideas.
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Process & Mathematical Concepts:
triggering a first garbage collection (GC) operation in the first storage device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation);
extracting the GC information from the second data and (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information),
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 1:
transmitting, by the first storage device, first data including GC information related to the first GC operation to the host (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for transmitting data);
receiving, by the second storage device, second data including the GC information from the host (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for data gathering); and
based on the GC information, performing a second GC operation on a memory device in the second storage device in synchronization with the first GC operation of the first storage device (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for garbage collection).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim 6 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Process & Mathematical Concepts:
extracting background information from the received first data, the background information being generated in an external storage device and related to a first background operation performed in the external storage device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information),
based on the background information, triggering a second background operation on one or more memory devices included in the storage device, wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a performance level which is set based on the background information during a time section from triggering of the second background operation to completion of the second background operation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 6:
receiving first data from the host (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for dataq gathering).
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites the following limitations directed towards a Mental Process & Mathematical Concepts:
a garbage collection (GC) manager configured to extract, from the first data, GC information generated by an external storage device and indicating that a first GC operation is being performed in the external storage device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information),
wherein the memory controller is configured to trigger a second GC operation on the memory device in synchronization with the first GC operation of the external storage device based on the GC information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A. In accordance with Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of the recitation in claim(s) 14:
a non-volatile memory device (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function); and
a memory controller (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) configured to exchange data in a form of a universal flash storage (UFS) protocol information unit (UPIU) with a host in accordance with a UFS interface standard,
wherein the memory controller comprises:
a packet manager configured to process first data received from the host
Step 2B. Similar to the analysis under 2A Prong Two, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because the additional elements of the independent claims amount to insignificant extra solution activity and/or mere instructions, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the judicial exception such that the independent claims as a whole would be patent eligible.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
With respect to claim(s) 2:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the first and second storage devices perform communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a response UFS protocol information unit (UPIU), and the second data is a command UPIU transmitted by the host (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for communicating data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein each of the first and second data comprises a header region and an extra header segment (EHS) region defined by the UFS interface standard, and wherein the GC information included in the second data is extracted from the EHS region (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for communicating data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the header region of the first data comprises a field storing an identification (ID) value identifying the second storage device as a destination storage device (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for storing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, in which both the internal IO operation and the host IO operation are performed in the first storage device, and wherein the second storage device sets a performance speed of the second GC operation performed in the second storage device based on the first information (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the background information comprises garbage collection (GC) information indicating that a first GC operation is being performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device performs a second GC operation on the one or more memory devices, based on the GC information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a first performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a second performance ratio which is set based on the first information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the storage device determines performance level of the external storage device processing a request from the host, based on the first information, and when performance level of the storage device is less than performance level of the external storage device, the storage device does not trigger the background operation corresponding to the background information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the background information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first background operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, in which both the internal IO operation and the host IO operation are performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device sets a performance speed of the background operation based on the first information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the storage device performs communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a command UFS protocol information unit (UPIU) defined by the UFS interface standard (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
generating an internal response in response to reception of the background information; (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to generating a response).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
including the internal response in a response UPIU transmitted to the host in response to reception of the command UPIU (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for transmitting data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 13:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the first data comprises a header region and an extra header segment (EHS) region, as defined in the UFS interface standard, and wherein the background information is extracted from the EHS region (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 15:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a first performance level set based on the first information, during a time section from triggering of the GC operation to completion of the GC operation (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 16:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the storage device processes the request from the host, based on second performance level different from the first performance level, according to the GC information extracted from third data sequentially received from the host after the first data (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 17:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the storage device determines performance level of the external storage device processing a request from the host, based on the first information, and when performance level of the storage device is less than performance level of the external storage device, the storage device does not trigger the background operation corresponding to the background information (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to extract information).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 18:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
Examiner is of the position the dependent claim is directed toward additional elements.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
wherein the first data comprises a header region and an extra header segment (EHS) region defined by the UFS interface standard, and wherein the GC information is extracted from the EHS region (recites insignificant extrasolution activity for processing data).
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 19:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein, when a number of free blocks of the storage device is reduced to less than a threshold value and the GC operation is triggered, the GC manager is configured to generate GC information indicating that the GC operation is being performed in the storage device, and wherein the packet manager includes, in the second data, the GC information generated by the GC manager (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 20:
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
wherein the second GC operation of the storage device performed in synchronization with the GC operation of the external storage device overlaps with at least a portion of the first GC operation of the external storage device (The limitation recites a mental process of observation and/or evaluation capable of being performed by the human mind by using computer as a tool to trigger an operation).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as drafted recites insignificant extrasolution activity.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishna et al. (US Pub. No. 20240377979).
As to claim 1, Krishna et al. teaches an operating method of a storage system, wherein the storage system comprises a first storage device and a second storage device, and the first and second storage devices are configured to communicate with a host, the method comprising:
triggering a first garbage collection (GC) operation in the first storage device (Paragraph 8 discloses while the operations are being executed on the first storage element to the n−1 storage element, initiating a first garbage collection operation on the n storage element);
transmitting, by the first storage device, first data including GC information related to the first GC operation to the host (Paragraph 112 discloses data may be transferred between a host 845 and the controller 840 using a data bus 850);
receiving, by the second storage device, second data including the GC information from the host (Paragraph 95 discloses When the programming operation 530 commences, additional host data (e.g., Data 2 535), may be transferred to Plane 1 510); and
extracting the GC information from the second data and, based on the GC information, performing a second GC operation on a memory device in the second storage device in synchronization with the first GC operation of the first storage device (Paragraph 106 discloses while the operations are being executed on the n storage element to the n−2 storage element, a second garbage collection operation is being executed on the n−1 storage element).
As to claim 5, Krishna et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, in which both the internal IO operation and the host IO operation are performed in the first storage device, and wherein the second storage device sets a performance speed of the second GC operation performed in the second storage device based on the first information (Paragraph 98 discloses the overall performance benefit of performing non-similar operations such as described herein may outweigh the delay, especially when compared with performance parameters of garbage collection operations being intermixed with host operations).
As to claim 6, Krishna et al. teaches an operating method of a storage device configured to communicate with a host, the method comprising:
receiving first data from the host (Paragraph 112 discloses data may be transferred between a host 845 and the controller 840 using a data bus 850);
extracting background information from the received first data, the background information being generated in an external storage device and related to a first background operation performed in the external storage device (Paragraph 104 discloses perform one or more garbage collection operations while the other storage elements are performing the operations received from the host device); and
based on the background information, triggering a second background operation on one or more memory devices included in the storage device,
wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a performance level which is set based on the background information during a time section from triggering of the second background operation to completion of the second background operation (Paragraph 106 discloses while the operations are being executed on the n storage element to the n−2 storage element, a second garbage collection operation is being executed on the n−1 storage element and Paragraph 98 discloses the overall performance benefit of performing non-similar operations such as described herein may outweigh the delay, especially when compared with performance parameters of garbage collection operations being intermixed with host operations).
As to claim 7, Krishna et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the background information comprises garbage collection (GC) information indicating that a first GC operation is being performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device performs a second GC operation on the one or more memory devices, based on the GC information (Paragraph 104 discloses perform one or more garbage collection operations while the other storage elements are performing the operations received from the host device).
As to claim 8, Krishna et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a first performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a second performance ratio which is set based on the first information (Paragraph 98 discloses the overall performance benefit of performing non-similar operations such as described herein may outweigh the delay, especially when compared with performance parameters of garbage collection operations being intermixed with host operations).
As to claim 9, Krishna et al. teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the storage device determines performance level of the external storage device processing a request from the host, based on the first information, and when performance level of the storage device is less than performance level of the external storage device, the storage device does not trigger the background operation corresponding to the background information (Paragraph 29 discloses USB flash drives and the like. It is desirable for the non-volatile storage device to maintain a consistent level of performance over an extended period of time. In order to achieve sustained performance, various background operations, such as garbage collection operations, wear leveling operations and/or bad block management operations need to be periodically performed).
As to claim 10, Krishna et al. teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the background information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first background operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, in which both the internal IO operation and the host IO operation are performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device sets a performance speed of the background operation based on the first information (Paragraph 33 discloses increasing performance of non-volatile storage devices by reducing or eliminating bottlenecks that may be caused by the performance of various garbage collection operations, maintaining performance parameters of the non-volatile storage device over its lifetime, and providing a way for removable non-volatile storage devices to perform garbage collection operations without negatively impacting performance of the removable non-volatile storage device and without unduly consuming resources).
As to claim 14, Krishna et al. teaches a storage device comprising:
a non-volatile memory device (See Fig. 1); and
a memory controller (See Fig. 1) configured to exchange data in a form of a universal flash storage (UFS) protocol information unit (UPIU) with a host in accordance with a UFS interface standard,
wherein the memory controller comprises:
a packet manager configured to process first data received from the host and generate second data transmitted to the host (Paragraph 112 discloses data may be transferred between a host 845 and the controller 840 using a data bus 850); and
a garbage collection (GC) manager configured to extract, from the first data, GC information generated by an external storage device and indicating that a first GC operation is being performed in the external storage device (Paragraph 104 discloses perform one or more garbage collection operations while the other storage elements are performing the operations received from the host device),
wherein the memory controller is configured to trigger a second GC operation on the memory device in synchronization with the first GC operation of the external storage device based on the GC information (Paragraph 106 discloses while the operations are being executed on the n storage element to the n−2 storage element, a second garbage collection operation is being executed on the n−1 storage element and Paragraph 98 discloses the overall performance benefit of performing non-similar operations such as described herein may outweigh the delay, especially when compared with performance parameters of garbage collection operations being intermixed with host operations).
As to claim 15, Krishna et al. teaches the device of claim 14, wherein the GC information comprises first information indicating a performance ratio of an internal input/output (IO) operation related to the first GC operation to a host IO operation related to processing a request from the host, performed in the external storage device, and wherein the storage device processes a request from the host according to a first performance level set based on the first information, during a time section from triggering of the GC operation to completion of the GC operation (Paragraph 33 discloses increasing performance of non-volatile storage devices by reducing or eliminating bottlenecks that may be caused by the performance of various garbage collection operations, maintaining performance parameters of the non-volatile storage device over its lifetime, and providing a way for removable non-volatile storage devices to perform garbage collection operations without negatively impacting performance of the removable non-volatile storage device and without unduly consuming resources).
As to claim 16, Krishna et al. teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the storage device processes the request from the host, based on second performance level different from the first performance level, according to the GC information extracted from third data sequentially received from the host after the first data (Paragraph 29 discloses USB flash drives and the like. It is desirable for the non-volatile storage device to maintain a consistent level of performance over an extended period of time. In order to achieve sustained performance, various background operations, such as garbage collection operations, wear leveling operations and/or bad block management operations need to be periodically performed).
As to claim 17, Krishna et al. teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the storage device determines performance level of the external storage device processing a request from the host, based on the first information, and when performance level of the storage device is lower than performance level of the external storage device, the GC operation in response to the GC information is not triggered (Paragraph 29 discloses USB flash drives and the like. It is desirable for the non-volatile storage device to maintain a consistent level of performance over an extended period of time. In order to achieve sustained performance, various background operations, such as garbage collection operations, wear leveling operations and/or bad block management operations need to be periodically performed).
As to claim 20, Krishna et al. teaches the device of claim 14, wherein the second GC operation of the storage device performed in synchronization with the GC operation of the external storage device overlaps with at least a portion of the first GC operation of the external storage device (Paragraph 106 discloses while the operations are being executed on the n storage element to the n−2 storage element, a second garbage collection operation is being executed on the n−1 storage element and Paragraph 98 discloses the overall performance benefit of performing non-similar operations such as described herein may outweigh the delay, especially when compared with performance parameters of garbage collection operations being intermixed with host operations
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-13, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US Pub. No. 20240377979) in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 20240070067).
The Krishna et al. reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1. With respect to claim 2, Krishna et al. does not disclose wherein the first and second storage devices perform communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a response UFS protocol information unit (UPIU), and the second data is a command UPIU transmitted by the host.
However, Choi et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first and second storage devices perform communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a response UFS protocol information unit (UPIU), and the second data is a command UPIU transmitted by the host (Paragraph 109 discloses the host interface 122 may exchange signals with the external host device in compliance with a Universal Flash Storage (UFS) communication protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify over Krishna et al. with Choi et al. to include the first and second storage devices perform communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a response UFS protocol information unit (UPIU), and the second data is a command UPIU transmitted by the host. This would have facilitated garbage collection operations. See Choi et al Paragraph(s) 6-13.
The Krishna et al. reference as modified by Choi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 2. With respect to claim 3, Choi et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the first and second data comprises a header region and an extra header segment (EHS) region defined by the UFS interface standard, and wherein the GC information included in the second data is extracted from the EHS region (Paragraph 508 discloses A portion of the seventh field of the source information may store an MSB of the initiator identifier IID as EXT_IID, and the remaining portion thereof may be reserved. The eighth field of the source information may include a total Extra Header Segment (EHS) length and may have, for example, a value of “ooh”. The ninth field of the source information may be reserved). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 2 provided above, combining the Upadhyay et al. reference and the Choi et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 3.
The Krishna et al. reference as modified by Choi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3. With respect to claim 4, Choi et al. discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the header region of the first data comprises a field storing an identification (ID) value identifying the second storage device as a destination storage device (Paragraph 508 discloses A portion of the seventh field of the source information may store an MSB of the initiator identifier IID as EXT_IID, and the remaining portion thereof may be reserved. The eighth field of the source information may include a total Extra Header Segment (EHS) length and may have, for example, a value of “ooh”. The ninth field of the source information may be reserved). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 3 provided above, combining the Krishna et al. reference and the Choi et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 11, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 2, because claim 11 is substantially equivalent to claim 2.
The Krishna et al. reference as modified by Choi et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11. With respect to claim 12, Choi et al. discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
generating an internal response in response to reception of the background information (Paragraph 535 discloses a response to the external host device. The response may be output using the response UPIU);
and
including the internal response in a response UPIU transmitted to the host in response to reception of the command UPIU (Paragraph 535 discloses a response to the external host device. The response may be output using the response UPIU). The motivation to combine statement previously provided in the rejection of dependent claim 11 provided above, combining the Krishna et al. reference and the Choi et al. reference is applicable to dependent claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 13 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
With respect to claim 18, it is rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 3, because claim 18 is substantially equivalent to claim 3.
The Krishna et al. reference teaches all the limitations of claim 14. With respect to claim 19, Krishna et al. does not disclose when a number of free blocks of the storage device is reduced to less than a threshold value and the GC operation is triggered, the GC manager is configured to generate GC information indicating that the GC operation is being performed in the storage device, and wherein the packet manager includes, in the second data, the GC information generated by the GC manager.
However, Choi et al. teaches the device of claim 14, wherein, when a number of free blocks of the storage device is reduced to less than a threshold value and the GC operation is triggered, the GC manager is configured to generate GC information indicating that the GC operation is being performed in the storage device, and wherein the packet manager includes, in the second data, the GC information generated by the GC manager (Paragraph 379 discloses ] When the write-requested data are not data for which performance or reliability is emphasized, in operation S2630, the memory controller 120 may determine whether the nonvolatile memory device 110 has low endurance. For example, when an average erase count of the nonvolatile memory device 110 is greater than a first threshold value or when a bit error rate when data are read from the nonvolatile memory device 110 is greater than a second threshold value, it may be determined that the endurance of the nonvolatile memory device 110 is low).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify over Krishna et al. with Choi et al. to include the first and second storage devices perform communication with the host in accordance with a universal flash storage (UFS) interface standard, and wherein the first data is a response UFS protocol information unit (UPIU), and the second data is a command UPIU transmitted by the host. This would have facilitated garbage collection operations. See Choi et al Paragraph(s) 6-13.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG-PUB 20220156008 is directed to STORAGE DEVICE, ELECTRONIC SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME: [0183] twelfth zone Z12 in which writing is performed according to a QLC write mode is one example of the garbage collection destination zone, and depending on some example embodiments, the garbage collection may be performed on the 0th to third zones Z0 to Z3, in which writing is performed according to an SLC write mode, with a zone in which writing is performed according to an MLC write mode or a TLC write mode..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3562. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 830-630.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571) 270-5626. 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.
/N.E.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights