DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on February 23, 2026.
Claims 1, 7, 13 and 18 are amended. No claims are canceled. No claims are added.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 13 overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous office action and therefore the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026, see page 10, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts there are no teachings in Athreya, et al (US 20200118636 A1, hereinafter Athreya), of pre-setting different thresholds for different sub-groups based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells in those sub-blocks to read disturb as now required in amended claim 1. However, Athreya teaches in ¶ [0044], “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met” (note in the context of ¶ [0043-0046], it is clear “read threshold” refers to a read count (or read disturb) threshold). If each particular sub-group of wordline can be assigned a threshold, as opposed to having a single threshold for all sub-groups or wordlines, it follows that at least one threshold would be different than the others; otherwise, there would be no need for thresholds for particular sub-groups or wordlines. Therefore, Athreya teaches different thresholds for different sub-groups.
Athreya further teaches in ¶ [0007] and [0042] that “FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an example of a method of preventing read disturb.” That is, the purpose of comparing the read count to the “read disturb threshold” (¶ [0032-0034]) is to address vulnerabilities of cells to read disturb (see also Athreya Abstract, ¶ [0036], [0045], etc.). Because the purpose of Athreya’s thresholds is to prevent read disturb, the thresholds must be “based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells” to read disturb. Because the read disturb thresholds pre-exist their usage, they can be said to be “predetermined.”
PNG
media_image1.png
477
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Athreya FIG. 6 showing “a method of preventing read disturb.”
Therefore, Athreya teaches the limitations of amended claim 1, “wherein the individual read usage thresholds associated with the sub-blocks are predetermined and are based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells in the sub-blocks to read disturb, and wherein at least one of the sub-blocks has a different read usage threshold than at least one of the other sub-blocks.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 11-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Athreya, et al (US 20200118636 A1), hereinafter Athreya.
Regarding independent claim 1, Athreya teaches a method (FIG. 6) of operating a memory device (FIG. 3A, 300), comprising steps of:
Providing a memory block (FIG. 5; Block 0..k) that includes an array of memory cells (FIG. 1, 100; ¶ [0018]) that are arranged in a plurality of word lines (FIG. 1, e.g., 106A; ¶ [0019]), the plurality of word lines being divided into a plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0020]; FIG. 5, e.g., memory cells controlled by SSGS0);
associating each of the sub-blocks with a respective and individual read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met” (note in the context of ¶ [0043-0046], it is clear “read threshold” refers to a read count (or read disturb) threshold));
programming the memory cells of the word lines to include data (¶ [0035], data is moved (read and written));
performing a plurality of read operations on the word lines of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044]);
comparing a read usage metric (FIG. 6, 606) associated with a selected sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count “for any of the sub-groups”) to the read usage threshold that is associated with the selected sub-block (¶ [0044] teaches “the firmware checks if the counters for any of the sub-groups are greater than a threshold. Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or word line is met.”);
in response to the read usage metric exceeding the read usage threshold (FIG. 6, 606, “YES” path), performing a read refresh operation on the selected sub-block (the present application teaches in ¶ [0011] a “read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device”; Athreya teaches in FIG. 6, 608, moving data from a set of word lines less than a block to another block (¶ [0041], [0045]; see also FIGS. 7A and 7B comparing a “conventional” technique (¶ [0032-0033]) to Athreya’s technique (¶ [0035-0036]) for “read refresh”); and
wherein the individual read usage thresholds associated with the sub-blocks are predetermined (because the read disturb thresholds pre-exist their usage, they can be said to be “predetermined”) and are based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells in the sub-blocks to read disturb (¶ [0007] and [0042] teach that “FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an example of a method of preventing read disturb.” That is, the purpose of comparing the read count to the “read disturb threshold” (¶ [0032-0034]) is to address vulnerabilities of cells to read disturb (see also Athreya Abstract, ¶ [0036], [0045], etc.). Because the purpose of Athreya’s thresholds is to prevent read disturb, the thresholds must be “based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells” to read disturb.), and wherein at least one of the sub-blocks has a different read usage threshold than at least one of the other sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” If each particular sub-group of wordline can be assigned a threshold, as opposed to having a single threshold for all sub-groups or wordlines, it follows that at least one threshold would be different than the others; otherwise, there would be no need for thresholds for particular sub-groups or wordlines. Therefore, Athreya teaches different thresholds for different sub-groups.).
Regarding claim 2, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Athreya further teaches the read usage metric is a read cycle counter (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count) and wherein the read usage threshold is a predetermined maximum read cycle count (FIG. 6, 606; the threshold is the maximum number the counter may reach without a “refresh” (data move) operation, and is therefore a “maximum read cycle count”).
Regarding claim 5, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Athreya further teaches at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks includes a different number of word lines than at least one of the other sub-blocks of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶[0041] teaches “Although the examples herein generally refer to moving two neighboring wordlines, in one example, more than two neighboring wordlines but less than the entire block are moved.” See also ¶[0048] (“few” vs. “several” wordlines) and ¶[0039] (changing the number of sub-groups will change the number of wordlines in an equivalent-sized block).).
Regarding claim 6, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Athreya further teaches the memory block is a first memory block (the present application appears to teach in ¶ [00159] a first memory block is the “source” block in a data refresh (move) operation; Athreya teaches in FIG. 7B the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A) and wherein the memory device includes a plurality of memory blocks that have identical sub-block arrangements (FIG. 5; each Block has identical sub-block arrangements); and
wherein the read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device (in FIG. 7B, the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); ¶ [0046, 0048]; see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A).
Regarding independent claim 7, Athreya teaches a memory device (FIG. 3A, 300), comprising:
a memory block (FIG. 5; Block 0..k) that includes an array of memory cells (FIG. 1, 100; ¶ [0018]) that are arranged in a plurality of word lines (FIG. 1, e.g., 106A; ¶ [0019]), the plurality of word lines being divided into a plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0020]; FIG. 5, e.g., memory cells controlled by SSGS0), and wherein each of the sub-blocks is associated with a respective individual read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met” (note in the context of ¶ [0043-0046], it is clear “read threshold” refers to a read count (or read disturb) threshold));
control circuitry (FIG. 3A, 304, 311) that is configured to;
program the memory cells of the word lines to include data (¶ [0035], data is moved (read and written)),
perform a plurality of read operations on the word lines of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044]),
compare a read usage metric (FIG. 6, 606) associated with a selected sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count “for any of the sub-groups”) to the read usage threshold that is associated with the selected sub-block (¶ [0044] teaches “the firmware checks if the counters for any of the sub-groups are greater than a threshold. Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.”),
in response to the read usage metric exceeding the read usage threshold (FIG. 6, 606, “YES” path), perform a read refresh operation on the selected sub-block (the present application teaches in ¶ [0011] a “read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device”; Athreya teaches in FIG. 6, 608, moving data from a set of word lines less than a block to another block (¶ [0041], [0045]; see also FIGS. 7A and 7B comparing a “conventional” technique (¶ [0032-0033]) to Athreya’s technique (¶ [0035-0036]) for “read refresh”); and
wherein the individual read usage thresholds associated with the sub-blocks are predetermined (because the read disturb thresholds pre-exist their usage, they can be said to be “predetermined”) and are based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells in the sub-blocks to read disturb (¶ [0007] and [0042] teach that “FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an example of a method of preventing read disturb.” That is, the purpose of comparing the read count to the “read disturb threshold” (¶ [0032-0034]) is to address vulnerabilities of cells to read disturb (see also Athreya Abstract, ¶ [0036], [0045], etc.). Because the purpose of Athreya’s thresholds is to prevent read disturb, the thresholds must be “based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells” to read disturb.), and wherein at least one of the sub-blocks has a different read usage threshold than at least one of the other sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” If each particular sub-group of wordline can be assigned a threshold, as opposed to having a single threshold for all sub-groups or wordlines, it follows that at least one threshold would be different than the others; otherwise, there would be no need for thresholds for particular sub-groups or wordlines. Therefore, Athreya teaches different thresholds for different sub-groups.).
Regarding claim 8, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Athreya further teaches the read usage metric is a read cycle counter (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count) and wherein the read usage threshold is a predetermined maximum read cycle count (FIG. 6, 606; the threshold is the maximum number the counter may reach without a “refresh” (data move) operation, and is therefore a “maximum read cycle count”).
Regarding claim 11, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Athreya further teaches at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks includes a different number of word lines than at least one of the other sub-blocks of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶[0041] teaches “Although the examples herein generally refer to moving two neighboring wordlines, in one example, more than two neighboring wordlines but less than the entire block are moved.” See also ¶[0048] (“few” vs. “several” wordlines) and ¶[0039] (changing the number of sub-groups will change the number of wordlines in an equivalent-sized block).).
Regarding claim 12, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Athreya further teaches the memory block is a first memory block and wherein the memory device includes a plurality of memory blocks that have identical sub-block arrangements (the present application appears to teach in ¶ [00159] a first memory block is the “source” block in a data refresh (move) operation; Athreya teaches in FIG. 7B the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A) and wherein the memory device includes a plurality of memory blocks that have identical sub-block arrangements (FIG. 5; each Block has identical sub-block arrangements); and
wherein the read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated by the control circuitry to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device (in FIG. 7B, the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); ¶ [0046, 0048]; see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A).
Regarding independent claim 13, Athreya teaches a computing system (FIG. 8), comprising:
a processing unit (FIG. 8, 801);
a plurality of flash packages (FIG. 8, 804; ¶ [0053] teaches “non-volatile storage 804 may include mass storage that is composed of one or more SSDs. SSDs can be composed of flash memory chips that are capable of implementing the read disturb prevention techniques described herein.”), each of the flash packages including a memory block (FIG. 5; Block 0..k) that includes an array of memory cells (FIG. 1, 100; ¶ [0018]) that are arranged in a plurality of word lines (FIG. 1, e.g., 106A; ¶ [0019]), the plurality of word lines being divided into a plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0020]; FIG. 5, e.g., memory cells controlled by SSGS0), and wherein each of the sub-blocks is associated with a respective and individual read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met” (note in the context of ¶ [0043-0046], it is clear “read threshold” refers to a read count (or read disturb) threshold));
control circuitry (FIG. 3A, 304, 311) that is configured to;
program the memory cells of the word lines to include data (¶ [0035], data is moved (read and written)),
perform a plurality of read operations on the word lines of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044]),
compare a read usage metric (FIG. 6, 606) associated with a selected sub-block of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count “for any of the sub-groups”) to the read usage threshold that is associated with the selected sub-block (¶ [0044] teaches “the firmware checks if the counters for any of the sub-groups are greater than a threshold. Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.”),
in response to the read usage metric exceeding the read usage threshold (FIG. 6, 606, “YES” path), perform a read refresh operation on the selected sub-block (the present application teaches in ¶ [0011] a “read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device”; Athreya teaches in FIG. 6, 608, moving data from a set of word lines less than a block to another block (¶ [0041], [0045]); see also FIGS. 7A and 7B comparing a “conventional” technique (¶ [0032-0033]) to Athreya’s technique (¶ [0035-0036]) for “read refresh”); and
wherein the individual read usage thresholds associated with the sub-blocks are predetermined (because the read disturb thresholds pre-exist their usage, they can be said to be “predetermined”) and are based on physical vulnerabilities of the memory cells in the sub-blocks to read disturb (¶ [0007] and [0042] teach that “FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an example of a method of preventing read disturb.” That is, the purpose of comparing the read count to the “read disturb threshold” (¶ [0032-0034]) is to address vulnerabilities of cells to read disturb (see also Athreya Abstract, ¶ [0036], [0045], etc.), and wherein at least one of the sub-blocks has a different read usage threshold than at least one of the other sub-blocks (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” If each particular sub-group of wordline can be assigned a threshold, as opposed to having a single threshold for all sub-groups or wordlines, it follows that at least one threshold would be different than the others; otherwise, there would be no need for thresholds for particular sub-groups or wordlines. Therefore, Athreya teaches different thresholds for different sub-groups.).
Regarding claim 14, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya further teaches the read usage metric is a read cycle counter and wherein the read usage threshold is a predetermined maximum read cycle count (¶ [0044] teaches a read access count) and wherein the read usage threshold is a predetermined maximum read cycle count (FIG. 6, 606; the threshold is the maximum number the counter may reach without a “refresh” (data move) operation, and is therefore a “maximum read cycle count”).
Regarding claim 17, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya further teaches at least one of the plurality of sub-blocks includes a different number of word lines than at least one of the other sub-blocks of the plurality of sub-blocks (¶ [0041] teaches “Although the examples herein generally refer to moving two neighboring wordlines, in one example, more than two neighboring wordlines but less than the entire block are moved.” See also ¶ [0048] (“few” vs. “several” wordlines) and ¶ [0039] (changing the number of sub-groups will change the number of wordlines in an equivalent-sized block).).
Regarding claim 18, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya further teaches the memory block is a first memory block (the present application appears to teach in ¶ [00159] a first memory block is the “source” block in a data refresh (move) operation; Athreya teaches in FIG. 7B the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A) and wherein each of the flash packages includes a plurality of memory blocks that have identical sub-block arrangements (FIG. 5; each Block has identical sub-block arrangements); and
wherein the read refresh operation is a relocation operation where the data contained in the memory cells of the selected sub-block is relocated by the control circuitry to a sub-block of a different memory block in the memory device (in FIG. 7B, the sub-block subject to a “refresh” operation is moved from one block (708) to another (710); ¶ [0046, 0048]; see also the “conventional” method of FIG. 7A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 3-4, 9-10, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athreya, et al (US 20200118636 A1), hereinafter Athreya.
Regarding claim 3, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Athreya further teaches in ¶ [0039] “fewer or more than three sub-groups” (see also ¶ [0041]), which overlaps the four sub-blocks in the present application (see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 4, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Athreya fails to show claimed range of two of the four sub-blocks have “high vulnerability” to read disturb. However, the claimed range will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical, which is lacking in the present disclosure (see ¶ [0009], [0015], and [0021] of the present application, which merely assert the “two of the four sub-blocks” scenario is the case). See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Athreya, however, teaches different sub-blocks have varying vulnerability to read disturb and are associated with different read usage thresholds, and the “second” read usage threshold is greater than the first read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” That is, the read disturb threshold (¶ [0035]) is set for each sub-group or word line based on its susceptibility to read disturb. See also FIG. 5 and ¶ [0038], which teaches “Tracking varying levels of access can enable different policies for different levels…By tracking the number of read accesses to sub-groups, data can be moved from the hot wordlines prior to read disturb-related data corruption.” Because different sub-groups may have different thresholds, differing thresholds will have some “greater than” others.).
Regarding claim 9, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Athreya further teaches in ¶ [0039] “fewer or more than three sub-groups” (see also ¶ [0041]), which overlaps the four sub-blocks in the present application (see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 10, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 9.
Athreya fails to show claimed range of two of the four sub-blocks have “high vulnerability” to read disturb. However, the claimed range will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical, which is lacking in the present disclosure (see ¶ [0009], [0015], and [0021] of the present application, which merely assert the “two of the four sub-blocks” scenario is the case). See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Athreya, however, teaches different sub-blocks have varying vulnerability to read disturb and are associated with different read usage thresholds, and the “second” read usage threshold is greater than the first read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” That is, the read disturb threshold (¶ [0035]) is set for each sub-group or word line based on its susceptibility to read disturb. See also FIG. 5 and ¶ [0038], which teaches “Tracking varying levels of access can enable different policies for different levels…By tracking the number of read accesses to sub-groups, data can be moved from the hot wordlines prior to read disturb-related data corruption.” Because different sub-groups may have different thresholds, differing thresholds will have some “greater than” others.).
Regarding claim 15, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya further teaches in ¶ [0039] teaches “fewer or more than three sub-groups” (see also ¶ [0041]), which overlaps the four sub-blocks in the present application (see MPEP § 2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 16, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Athreya fails to show claimed range of two of the four sub-blocks have “high vulnerability” to read disturb. However, the claimed range will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical, which is lacking in the present disclosure (see ¶ [0009], [0015], and [0021] of the present application, which merely assert the “two of the four sub-blocks” scenario is the case). See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Athreya, however, teaches different sub-blocks have varying vulnerability to read disturb and are associated with different read usage thresholds, and the “second” read usage threshold is greater than the first read usage threshold (¶ [0044] teaches “Various policies can be employed for checking whether the read threshold for a particular sub-group or wordline is met.” That is, the read disturb threshold (¶ [0035]) is set for each sub-group or word line based on its susceptibility to read disturb. See also FIG. 5 and ¶ [0038], which teaches “Tracking varying levels of access can enable different policies for different levels…By tracking the number of read accesses to sub-groups, data can be moved from the hot wordlines prior to read disturb-related data corruption.” Because different sub-groups may have different thresholds, differing thresholds will have some “greater than” others.).
Regarding claim 19, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya fails to show claimed range of the plurality of high bandwidth flash packages includes at least five high bandwidth flash packages that are in communication with a single processor unit. However, the claimed range will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical, which is lacking in the present disclosure (see ¶ [0024] and [00151] of the present application, in which Applicant merely asserts five HBF packages are used in an embodiment). See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Athreya, however, teaches a plurality of “flash packages” (¶ [0053], “flash memory chips that are capable of implementing the read disturb prevention techniques described herein”) in communication with one or more processors (¶ [0051]).
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Athreya, et al (US 20200118636 A1), hereinafter Athreya, in view of Alizadeh, et al (“LLM in a flash: Efficient Large Language Model Inference with Limited Memory”, arXiv:2312.11514v1 [cs.CL], December 12, 2023), hereinafter Alizadeh.
Regarding claim 20, Athreya teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Athreya does not teach the data includes large language model weight matrices.
Alizadeh teaches the data stored in flash memory includes large language model weight matrices (p. 3, section 3, ll. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Alizadeh into the method of Athreya to include storing large language models in flash memory. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Athreya in the above manner for the purpose of avoiding the need to fit the entire model in DRAM (Alizadeh, p. 1, col. 2, ll. 19-22), reducing loading time and power costs (Alizadeh, p. 2. Section 2.1, ll. 18-21).
Citation of Relevant Art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tan, et al (US 20240054070 A1), teaches “…compare the number of read operations to a predetermined threshold number of read operations; initiate scanning memory pages of a block of memory cells for errors in response to reaching the threshold number of read operations for the block…” (Abstract).
Lee, et al (US 20230069656 A1), teaches in ¶ [0007], “an open region manager configured to select, as target open regions, at least a part of open regions, a read count of each of which is equal to or greater than a threshold value among the open regions; and a refresh controller configured to set a refresh period so that refresh time points of the respective target open regions are distributed on the basis of disturbance vulnerability of each of the target open regions,” and in ¶ [0035], “…setting a threshold of a read count per memory region and then moving data in a memory region, whose read count has reached the threshold, to another memory region.”
Muchherla, et al (WO 2019045943 A1) teaches in FIG. 7 and ¶ [0077], “If the current count of reads is greater than the predetermined threshold for reads, this status can be provided to calibration controller 744, and calibration controller 744 can trigger a read level calibration.”
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 BRADLEY COON whose telephone number is (571)270-0740. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (Eastern).
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.
/B.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2827
/AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827