DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
07/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responding to the arguments filed on 03/02/2026. Claims 1-3,5-11 and 13-18 are pending. Arguments with regard to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of office action filed on 10/29/2025 has been considered and is hereby withdrawn. But a new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection has been added due to amendments to claims 5 and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added limitation in the amended claims 5 and 13 “determining that a current voltage of the memory cell falls within a voltage range corresponding to a plurality of candidate charge states, wherein un-backed-up data corresponding to the plurality of candidate charge states are identical due to the gray-code mapping principle” does not have sufficient
support in the specification. The specification discloses the "backed-up middle page data or backed-up lower page data " are in paragraph [0039] for Fig 5 but not specifically teach un-backed-up data corresponding to the plurality of candidate charge states. Claim 5 and 13 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 6-8, 14-15 and 18 are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims 5 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 9 are allowable. Examiner has conducted update search and given considerations to applicants arguments and/or requests. The prior art does not teach “writing one or more first user data, as requested by the one or more first host write commands, to lower pages of the plurality of TLC blocks configured as the one or more SLC blocks; in response to determining that a writable space in the flash memory is below a first predetermined value, configuring the plurality of TLC blocks configured as the one or more SLC blocks as one or more multi-level cell (MLC) blocks; based on one or more second host write commands, writing one or more second user data, as requested by the one or more second host write commands, to middle pages of the plurality of TLC blocks configured as the one or more the upper pages of the one or more MLC blocks without performing a garbage collection operation; in response to determining that the writable space in the flash memory falls between the first predetermined value and a second predetermined value, configuring the plurality of TLC blocks configured as the one or more MLC blocks as one or more TLC blocks; and based on one or more third host write commands, writing one or more third user data, as requested by the one or more third host write commands, to upper pages of the one or more TLC blocks without performing a garbage collection operation” – limitations of claims 1 and 9.
The closest prior art Jain does teach Helm et al. (US 20210349662 A1) does
teach writing to SLC, MLC, TLC and QLC blocks based on capacity threshold but not teach in an order of writing first user data to lower page of TLC blocks configured as SLC block, then writing second user data to middle pages of TLC block configured as MLC block and then writing third user data to upper pages of TLC block without performing garbage collection.
Claims 5 and 13 are allowable if the 112(a) rejection set forth above is
overcome. Examiner has conducted update search and given considerations to applicants arguments and/or requests. The prior art does not teach “determining that a current voltage of the memory cell falls within a voltage range corresponding to a plurality of candidate charge states, wherein un-backed-up data corresponding to the plurality of candidate charge states are identical due to the gray-code mapping principle based on the current voltage falling within the voltage range and the backed-up only one of the middle page data and the lower page data from the another memory cell of the flash memory, recovering the middle page data and the lower page data of the memory cell” – limitations of claims 5 and 13.
The closest prior art Jain does teach Avila et al. (US 9201788 B1) does
teach SLC blocks providing backup copies of lower, middle and upper pages but does not teach un-backed-up data corresponding to the plurality of candidate charge states are identical due to the gray-code mapping principle based on the current voltage falling within the voltage range and the backed-up only one of the middle page data and the lower page data from the another memory cell of the flash memory, recovering the middle page data and the lower page data of the memory cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/02/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive for claims 1 and 9. However, in the current action, Claim(s) 5 and 13 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 5 and 18 would be allowed if the 35 USC 112(a) rejection is overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBIR K CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (703)756-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 CST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)-272-3978. 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.
/S.K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights