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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 20 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Examiner acknowledges amendments to the claims which upon further consideration have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0308760), hereinafter referred to as Yeom, in view of Urata et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0062658), hereinafter referred to as Urata, Shulkin et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0357535), hereinafter referred to as Shulkin, Spector et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,275,527), hereinafter referred to as Spector, and Boehm et al (WIPO Pub. No. 2020/222991), hereinafter referred to as Boehm.
In regard to claim 1, Yeom teaches operating a storage device including a plurality of meta blocks configured to store a plurality of metadata (Yeom Paragraph 0007; meta blocks can be specifically managed, lines 4-7). Yeom does not teach the remaining limitations of claim 1.
However, Urata teaches a control unit of a storage device which can detect an abnormal state of the storage device (Urata Paragraph 0030, lines 7-10) upon receiving a command from a host device (Urata Paragraph 0070, lines 3-5; RAID apparatus 13 is external to host 11 in Fig. 2; rebuild time prediction functionally requires detecting a drive is in abnormal state in order to add as to be rebuilt, see Paragraph 0079, rebuild time command is used to determine if rebuild is immediately necessary (Step S22, Paragraph 0073)) i.e. if drives are currently abnormal, meaning the command is for detecting abnormal states) and generates a response during a process which also includes obtaining load analysis information (e.g. characteristic information; information regarding volume rebuilding on abnormal drives, Urata Paragraph 0080-82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosure of Yeom with that of Urata in order to detect an abnormal state of a drive and reduce processing load when rebuilding logical volumes (Urata Paragraph 0097, lines 11-12).
Urata does not teach the remaining limitations of claim 1. However, Shulkin teaches obtaining a plurality characteristic values of a plurality of blocks on a storage device. Shulkin Paragraph 0040, lines 16-32 disclose 10 different characteristics of specific blocks which may all be collected, including a total number of reads/writes (e.g. endurance characteristic), a last programming time (e.g. data retention characteristic), optimal read voltage thresholds (e.g. read disturbance characteristic), and temperature information. Shulkin Paragraph 0045, lines 1-6 disclose calculating a quality level of blocks based on metrics received (e.g. degradation index), which can be used to modify operating parameters (e.g. be included in a response; Shulkin Paragraph 0065). If included in the load analysis information obtaining step of Urata, the claimed limitation of obtaining characteristic values in response to a command is achieved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosures of Yeom and Urata with that of Shulkin in order to calculate memory block degradation and "improve the performance or endurance of a flash memory device" (Shulkin Paragraph 0013, lines 1-3).
The previously cited references do not explicitly teach blocking a plurality of commands received from the host device in response to receiving a second command from the host device, the second command requesting a command blocking function of the storage device. However, Spector teaches a process including a first command and a second command requesting a command blocking function of the storage device (Column 8, lines 1-9 write-verify operation includes write followed by ordered read which is a blocking task that blocks subsequent tasks (e.g. a plurality of commands) until the task is completed; Fig. 4 commands are received from host and executed by storage device's controller), achieving the claimed limitation. A person of ordinary skill could easily implement this functionality in prior art storage controllers like those of Urata. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Spector in order to allow for command blocking while completing a task and address issues relating to ensuring proper execution of commands by a storage system (Spector Column 1, lines 40-44).
The previously cited references do not explicitly teach a command blocking mode different from a normal mode, however Boehm ¶ 0090 discloses that a host may issue an indication (e.g. a command in the context of previously cited references in combination) to activate a safe mode different than a normal mode of operation which may block multiple host commands (¶ 0095), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Boehm in order to block access commands in a safe mode which could help compensate for decreased data integrity and address error events (Page 3, lines 10-18).
As for claim 15, Yeom, Urata, and Shulkin teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Urata Paragraphs 0064-0065 disclose storing and accessing historical monitoring data over specified periods of time, which functionally requires periodic logging of characteristics and associated calculations, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 16, Yeom, Urata, and Shulkin teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Urata Paragraphs 0064-0065 disclose storing and accessing historical monitoring data over specified periods of time, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 17, Yeom, Urata, and Shulkin teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Urata Paragraphs 0050, lines 3-4 disclose using SSDs for storage devices, achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 18, Yeom teaches an embodiment of a storage device including a plurality of non-volatile memories (Yeom Paragraph 0121). Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, and Boehm teach the remaining limitations of claim 18, and Applicant is directed to the rejection of claim 1, which addresses the remining limitations of claim 18.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Spector, and Boehm, and further in view of Hoang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0131948)
In regard to claim 2, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Shulkin discloses obtaining a plurality of characteristic values and calculating a degradation index based on them (generating output of block quality levels based on received metrics; Shulkin Paragraph 0045, lines 1-6), including a data retention time (Shulkin Paragraph 0040, lines 24-25; last programming time). The previously cited references do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 2. However, Hoang Paragraph 0098, lines 4-5 disclose calculating storage device lifetime using erase count, and Paragraphs 0102-0104 disclose tracking erase count percentile using different intervals, achieving the claimed limitation. Hoang Paragraph 0067, lines 6-11 additionally disclose tracking individual read and write operations (with time logging, Paragraph 0126, lines 1-5), functionally achieving the claimed limitation of recording the number of reads since the last write operation. Hoang also discloses tracking write error rate as a function of temperature (Hoang Paragraph 0123, lines 3-5), meaning temperature is measured while a write is performed, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosures of the previously cited references with that of Hoang in order to track specific characteristics of blocks and to collect data for use in algorithms to improve drive lifetime or performance (Hoang Paragraph 0065, lines 9-11).
As for claim 3, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 2. Additionally, Shulkin teaches a degradation index (Shulkin Paragraph 0018, line 5 output endurance metric) calculated using a weighted sum of characteristics (Shulkin Paragraph 0018, lines 6-11 weighted linear combination; lines 3-4 inputs are individual characteristics), achieving the claimed limitation.
As for claim 9, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 9. However, Hoang Paragraph 0095, lines 1-3 discloses calculating drive lifetime from a rate of change of erase counts. Paragraph 0105 discloses only calculating the drive lifetime (e.g. generating a response) when erase counts exceed a specified amount in a given time period, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosures of the previously cited references with that of Hoang in order to track characteristics over an interval and to collect data for use in algorithms to improve drive lifetime or performance (Hoang Paragraph 0065, lines 9-11).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Spector, Boehm, and Hoang, and further in view of Malshe et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0229325), hereinafter referred to as Malshe.
In regard to claim 5, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 2. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 5. However, Malshe teaches calculating health characteristic levels based on individual thresholds (Malshe Paragraph 0024, lines 1-7). Malshe also discloses determining a resulting weight (e.g. degradation index; lines 4-7) for performing a media management operation. Malshe also discloses targeting blocks with a highest health characteristic level for media management operations (Malshe Paragraph 0063, lines 1-4), achieving the claimed limitation. It should be noted that the “weights” of Malshe and the “quality level” of Shulkin have the same use (for assigning a certain value to a block for use in media management operations; see Shulkin Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4), so they can both be mapped as a form of the claimed degradation index. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the previously referenced disclosures with that of Malshe in order to target blocks having a highest characteristic level and "reduce a frequency of occurrence of static wear leveling operations" (Malshe Paragraph 0023, lines 10-12).
As for claim 6, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 5. Additionally, Malshe Paragraph 0033, lines 7-12 disclose embodiments containing different memory cells (e.g. SLC, MLC, TLC) which would functionally require different level distinction criteria for health characteristics in different blocks because SLC and MLC cells, for example, have different expected lifetimes, use cases, and operating characteristics as is well known in the art.
As for claim 7, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 7. However, Malshe teaches generating a response when the degradation index of a first block is greater than or equal to an abnormal state standard value. Malshe Paragraph 0054, lines 1-3 disclose associating a weight (e.g. degradation index) to a block exceeding a health characteristic threshold. It should be noted that the “weights” of Malshe and the “quality level” of Shulkin have the same use (for assigning a certain value to a block for use in media management operations; see Shulkin Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4), so they can both be mapped as a form of the claimed degradation index. A weight is not associated with blocks that are lower than the threshold and so they are not targeted for media management (e.g. degradation index of 0; Malshe Paragraph 0053), indicating that the presence of a weight value is the abnormal state standard value (e.g. weight greater or less than 0 results in abnormal state), meaning a "response" (targeted media management operation) is only generated when an abnormal state is detected, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the previously referenced disclosures with that of Malshe in order to determine when blocks are in an abnormal state and "reduce a frequency of occurrence of static wear leveling operations" (Malshe Paragraph 0023, lines 10-12).
As for claim 8, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 8. However, Malshe Paragraph 0071, lines 3-5 disclose setting a health threshold as an average of characteristic values of a sub-set (for ex. User subset) of blocks. Malshe Paragraph 0074, lines 6-9 disclose assigning a weight to a block(e.g. generating a response) when a characteristic is greater than the threshold, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the previously referenced disclosures with that of Malshe in order to target blocks exceeding an average characteristic level and "reduce a frequency of occurrence of static wear leveling operations" (Malshe Paragraph 0023, lines 10-12).
As for claim 19, the previously cited references teach the storage device of claim 18. Additionally, Shulkin discloses obtaining a plurality of characteristic values and calculating a degradation index based on them (Shulkin Paragraph 0045, lines 1-6), including a data retention time (Shulkin Paragraph 0040, lines 24-25; last programming time). The previously cited references do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 19. However, Malshe teaches generating a response when the degradation index of a first block is greater than or equal to an abnormal state standard value. Malshe Paragraph 0054, lines 1-3 disclose associating a weight (e.g. degradation index) to a block exceeding a health characteristic threshold. It should be noted that the “weights” of Malshe and the “quality level” of Shulkin have the same use (for assigning a certain value to a block for use in media management operations; see Shulkin Paragraph 0051, lines 1-4), so they can both be mapped as a form of the claimed degradation index. A weight is not associated with blocks that are lower than the threshold and so they are not targeted for media management (e.g. degradation index of 0; Malshe Paragraph 0053), indicating that the presence of a weight value is the abnormal state standard value (e.g. weight greater or less than 0 results in abnormal state), meaning a "response" (targeted media management operation) is only generated when an abnormal state is detected. Additionally, Malshe teaches a media management component 113 in Fig. 1 which assigns weights to blocks (e.g. abnormal state decisioning module; Paragraph 0047, lines 1-4), achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the previously referenced disclosures with that of Malshe in order to determine when blocks are in an abnormal state and "reduce a frequency of occurrence of static wear leveling operations" (Malshe Paragraph 0023, lines 10-12). Malshe does not teach the remaining limitations of claim 19. However, Hoang Paragraph 0098, lines 4-5 disclose calculating storage device lifetime using erase count, and Paragraphs 0102-0104 disclose tracking erase count percentile using different intervals, achieving the claimed limitation. Hoang Paragraph 0067, lines 6-11 additionally disclose tracking individual read and write operations (with time logging, Paragraph 0126, lines 1-5), functionally achieving the claimed limitation of recording the number of reads since the last write operation. Hoang also discloses tracking write error rate as a function of temperature (Hoang Paragraph 0123, lines 3-5), meaning temperature is measured while a write is performed, achieving the claimed limitation. Hoang Paragraph 0267, lines 9-11 additionally disclose calculating a life expectancy (e.g. degradation index) using collected data. Hoang also discloses that this software method can be loaded into a specialized controller for logging operations, achieving the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the disclosures of the previously cited references with that of Hoang in order to track specific characteristics of blocks and to collect data for use in algorithms to improve drive lifetime or performance (Hoang Paragraph 0065, lines 9-11).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Spector, and Boehm, in further view of Huang et al (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0185418), hereinafter referred to as Huang.
In regard to claim 10, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. Additionally, Shulkin teaches saving block information data in a store 114 shown in Fig. 1 which can be implemented as a database and accessed over a network (Shulkin Paragraph 0031). When combined with the disclosure of Huang Paragraph 0029, wherein a device including nonvolatile memory receives debug commands through a host connection and outputs corresponding debugging information, the claimed limitation is achieved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Huang with the previously cited references in order to obtain debugging information about specific blocks from a block data store and allow approved connected devices to perform resets or file system flashes (Huang Paragraph 0015, lines 1-5).
As for claim 11, the previously cited references teach the method of claim 10. Additionally, the block information data store 114 of Shulkin is disclosed as storing the previously addressed block level characteristics (Shulkin Paragraph 0041), meaning debugging information would include such data, achieving the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Spector, and Boehm, and further in view of Yun et al (U.S. Patent No. 2018/0039578), hereinafter referred to as Yun. The previously cited references teach the method of claim 1. They do not teach the remaining limitations of claim 14. However, Yun teaches an embodiment where a host transmits an asynchronous event command to request resources (Yun Paragraph 0043, lines 1-3), and the storage controller responds to the command (Yun Paragraph 0044, lines 1-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Yun with the previously cited references in order to process AER commands and “decrease the number of map misses or improve the reliability index of NAND flash memories through [an] asynchronous event” (Yun Paragraph 0061, lines 3-6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Spector, Boehm, Hoang, Malshe, and Huang. Applicant is directed to the rejections of claims 18 and 19 above as the previously recited combination of the cited references (Yeom, Urata, Shulkin, Hoang, and Malshe) achieves the majority of the claimed limitations. Additionally, Shulkin teaches saving block information data in a store 114 shown in Fig. 1 which can be implemented as a database and accessed over a network (Shulkin Paragraph 0031). When combined with the disclosure of Huang Paragraph 0029, wherein a device including nonvolatile memory receives debug commands through a host connection and outputs corresponding debugging information, the claimed limitation is achieved. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosure of Huang with the previously cited references in order to obtain debugging information about specific blocks from a block data store and allow approved connected devices to perform resets or file system flashes on device memory (Huang Paragraph 0015, lines 1-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (see pages 10 and 15 of response filed 26 September 2025) with respect to amended claims 1, 18, and 20 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive in light of newly found reference Boehm. Upon further search and consideration, new reference Boehm was found to teach a command blocking mode different from the normal mode of the storage device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, as addressed in prior correspondence with the Office.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT whose telephone number is (571)270-0472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30AM-5PM EST.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/ZAKARIA MOHAMMED BELKHAYAT/Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139