Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/615,141

ALLOCATING THERMAL REGION TAGS IN A STORAGE DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Examiner
HOANG, HUAN
Art Unit
2154
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
sandisk technologies LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
93%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 93% — above average
93%
Career Allow Rate
1123 granted / 1206 resolved
+38.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
1227
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1206 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 § 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 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation "an optimal TRT parameter" in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether this limitation is different from “an optimal TRT parameter” in claim 1, lines 2-3 and the limitation “the optimal TRT parameter” in claim 5, line 1 and claim 9, line 3 does not clearly relate back to “an optimal TRT parameter” in claim 1, lines 2-3 or lines 7-8. Claim 11 recites the limitation "an optimal TRT parameter" in line 9. It is unclear whether this limitation is different from “an optimal TRT parameter” in claim 11, line 3 and claim 17, line 3, and the limitation “the optimal TRT parameter” in claim 13, line 1 does not clearly relate back to “an optimal TRT parameter” in claim 11, line 3 or lines 7-8. Claim 19 recites the limitation “a meta block” in line 6. It is unclear whether this limitation is different from “a meta block” in claim 19, line 1 and the limitation “the block” in claim 19, lines 8-9, and the limitation “the meta block” in claim 19, lines 16-17 do not clearly relate back to “a meta block” in claim 19, line 6 or line 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 11 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Regarding claim 1, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach the claimed limitation of “a controller to program a first meta block, obtain a current temperature, a first TRT associated with the current temperature, and a parameter associated with the first TRT when closing the first meta block, determine if a condition exists to affect an optimal TRT parameter, and if the condition exists, deactivate the first TRT, allocate a second TRT to a thermal region including the current temperature, and assign the second TRT to the first meta block.” in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Regarding claim 11, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach the claimed limitation of “obtaining a current temperature, a first TRT associated with the current temperature, and a parameter associated with the first TRT when closing the meta block, determining if a condition exists to affect an optimal TRT parameter; and if the condition exists, deactivating the first TRT, allocating a second TRT toa thermal region including the current temperature, and assigning the second TRT to the first meta block.” in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Claims 12-18 depend on claim 11. Regarding claim 19, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach the claimed limitation of “a controller to: program a meta block, obtain a current temperature, a first TRT associated with the current temperature, and a parameter associated with the first TRT when closing the block, determine that at least one of the first TRT has been active for more than a predefined active period, a temperature fluctuation across a predefined number of thermal regions occurred during previous meta blocks programming, and a number of meta blocks assigned to the first TRT is greater than a TRT compaction threshold, and deactivate the first TRT, allocate a second TRT to a thermal region including the current temperature, and assign the second TRT to the meta block”. in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Claim 20 depends on claim 19. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kientz et al. (US 12,210,759) discloses threshold voltage bin calibration at memory device power up; however, Kientz et al. does not disclose a controller to perform the claimed functions. Her et al. (US 2019/0392907) discloses a read voltage setting component controls the memory device to determine an optimal read voltage according to the environment. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM-4:00PM M-F. 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, AMIR ZARABIAN can be reached at 571-272-1852. 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. /HUAN HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603116
OPERATING METHOD OF MEMORY CONTROLLER, AND MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597462
NON-VOLATILE MEMORY WITH HYBRID ROUTING FOR SHARED WORD LINE SWITCHES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592277
DISTRIBUTED WRITE DRIVER FOR MEMORY ARRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592278
MEMORY DEVICE USING SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586630
MEMORY ARRAY CIRCUIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
93%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+5.7%)
1y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1206 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month