DETAILED ACTION
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 5/28/2026.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 data writing” at the seventh-to-last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. This limitation has been interpreted as “[[the]] data writing.” The dependent claims inherit this rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “determine, based on the proportion of valid data, a calculated value of the number of blocks adopting the first mode.” This statement suggests that the calculation determines a number of blocks adopting the first mode. However, the examiner’s reading of the specification and the claims indicate that the calculation determines a number of blocks allowed to adopt the first mode (see particularly Paragraph 0096 of the specification). The meaning of this limitation is therefore unclear. For purposes of prior art examination, this limitation has been treated as “determine, based on the proportion of valid data, a calculated value of the number of blocks allowed to adopt
Claim 1 recites “configure a new block” at the 8th-to-last line of the claim. It is unclear if this is the same as the previously recited “a new block” recited at the 10th-to-last line of the claim. If they are different, this must be more clearly distinguished, such as by designating “a first new block” and “a second new block.” If the blocks are the same, the 8th-to-last line must recite “the [[a]] new block” or the like. For purposes of prior art examination, the recited “new block” has been treated as the same block. The other independent claims have a similar issue. The dependent claims inherit this issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “configure a new block to perform the data writing with the first mode when the number of blocks adopting the first mode determined based on the proportion of valid data is responsive to the calculated value being greater than a current number of blocks actually adopting the first mode; and configure the new block to perform the data writing with the second mode when the number of blocks adopting the first mode determined based on the proportion of valid data is responsive to the calculated value being less than or equal to a current number of blocks actually adopting the first mode.”
These limitations are unclear, and the examiner believes portions of these limitations are intended to be removed, similar to how claims 11 and 20 are recited. The examiner has interpreted these limitations as “configure a new block to perform the data writing with the first mode
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant's art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. These references include:
Kurita et al (US 2022/0043604) teaches MEMORY SYSTEM AND WRITE CONTROL METHOD.
CLOSING COMMENTS
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
SUBJECT MATTER CONSIDERED ALLOWABLE
Claim 20 now recites, “determining, based on the proportion of valid data, a calculated value of the number of blocks adopting the first mode;” and “configuring a new block to perform the data writing with the first mode responsive to the calculated value being greater than a current number of blocks actually adopting the first mode; and configuring the new block to perform the data writing with the second mode responsive to the calculated value being less than or equal to a current number of blocks actually adopting the first mode.”
The cited prior art of Pletka et al (US 2024/0427515) teaches resizing a pool of blocks based on utilization according to the process of Fig. 6 of Pletka. However, the cited prior art does not teach determining a calculated value, and configuring a new block to perform data writing in either a first or second mode based on the calculated value.
Therefore, claim 20 contains allowable subject matter. The other independent claims contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons. The examiner notes rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph remain as noted above.
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 have been rejected in the application.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00- 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights