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 .
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) 1, 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2016/0103630), and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2004/0177212).
Consider claim 1, Shen discloses a method, comprising: determining a program erase cycle (PEC) count of each block in a plurality of blocks of memory cells; determining, based on a difference between a PEC count of a particular block and a PEC count threshold, a weight to associate with the particular block; wherein the PEC count threshold is calculated by determining an average PEC count of the PEC counts of the plurality of blocks of memory cells; and in association with performing a media management operation, determining whether to select the particular block of memory cells, wherein a likelihood that the particular block is selected is dependent on the weight ([0004], [0005], [0014]-[0017], [0028], [0031], [0033], [0035]-[0038], [0065] and [0081], A block of memory can have PEC information calculated to produce health indicators. These indicators can include weighted values. The indicators and compared against thresholds to determine comparative health between blocks, these thresholds are based on the properties of the memory itself and therefore have a correspondence to the memory blocks as a whole. Operations can be performed on a block based on its health, such as writes, wear leveling, garbage collection and background operations. Blocks can have health indicators (POC counts) compared to see which region(block) is the healthiest.).
Shen et al. discloses having PEC count thresholds based on the properties of the memory, but does not explicitly state that the PEC count threshold is the average of the PEC counts of the plurality of blocks, however Chang et al. does teach this feature (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Shen reference to have the PEC count threshold to be the average of the PEC counts of the plurality of blocks because doing so allows for efficiently enabling erase counts to be spread out across substantially all storage areas (Chang et al. [0003]).
Claim 10 is the apparatus claim to method claim 1 above and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 16 is the apparatus claim to method claim 1 above and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5-9, 11-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen (US 2016/0103630) in view of Chang et al. (US 2004/0177212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Souri et al. (US 10,417,123).
Consider claim 5, Shen et al. in view of Chang et al. discloses choosing a block to wear level based on the PEC count of the block. However, Shen does not explicitly state that the wear leveling is static or how exactly it is determined to be performed and therefore does not alone teach: “performing a wear leveling operation in response to a PEC count that is above an upper wear leveling threshold value.”. However, Souri et al. does teach these features (Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, static wear leveling is performed and blocks with a minimum P/E count are selected to have data wear leveled to blocks with a high P/E count. Thresholds are used in this determination.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Shen et al. and Chang et al. reference to have the disclosed wear leveling be static because static wear leveling addresses static blocks that are hardly touched and will remain inactive (like OS files) and therefore without static wear leveling there will be blocks that wear unevenly reducing the lifespan of the whole memory device. Active blocks will wear fast, while unchanging blocks with valid data, like OS files, will hardly wear at all (Souri et al.: Col. 2 lines 18-54).
Consider claim 6, Shen et al. in view of Chang et al. and Souri et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the static wear leveling operation is performed on a block having a highest PEC count (Souri et al.: Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, static wear leveling is performed and blocks with a minimum P/E count are selected to have data wear leveled to blocks with a high P/E count. Thresholds are used in this determination.).
Consider claim 7, Shen et al. in view of Chang et al. and Souri et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the static wear leveling operation includes selecting a block having the highest PEC count as a source block for the media management operation (Souri et al.: Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, static wear leveling is performed and blocks with a minimum P/E count are selected to have data wear leveled to blocks with a high P/E count. Thresholds are used in this determination.).
Consider claim 8, Shen et al. in view of Chang et al. and Souri et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the static wear leveling operation includes selecting a block having a lowest PEC count as a destination block for the media management operation (Souri et al.: Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, static wear leveling is performed and blocks with a minimum P/E count are selected to have data wear leveled to blocks with a high P/E count. Thresholds are used in this determination.).
Consider claim 9, Shen et al. in view of Chang et al. and Souri et al. disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the destination block for the wear leveling operation is selected from a free block pool (Shen: Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, Souri et al.: Col. 2 lines 18-54 and Col. 6-7 lines 38-45, Free blocks are disclosed.).
Claims 11-15 is the apparatus claims to method claims 4-8 above and is rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 17-20 is the apparatus claims to method claims 5-8 above and is rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments pertain to the new claim limitations, which have been addressed in the appropriate claim rejections above by the inclusion of the Chang et al. reference.
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 MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 G 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136
Prosecution Insights