DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to 08/13/2026 Amendment and RCE.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,455,048 to Berckmann et al. (hereafter Berckmann).
Regarding independent claim 1, Berckmann teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a processing device, a write command to program data to a block of a memory device (FIG. 1: when host 106 send to memory controller 105 a write command and data to be written, see 4:9-11);
identifying, using current position of a zone write pointer that identifies a next sequential write location within a zone of a zoned namespace, a wordline of the block that addresses a set of memory cells for writing the data (FIG. 7A: pointer 742 to identify word line of fragments in memory block 702 for writing data, where a zone is seen comprising word lines within the memory block namespace 702);
determining whether the identified wordline matches an entry in a data structure (e.g. when a selected word line is identified as bad word line, it is not selected for writing data, see 13:23-37); and
responsive to determining that the identified wordline matches the entry in the data structure, updating the zone write pointer to select a new wordline associated with the block (see 13:23-37).
Regarding independent claim 8, Berckmann teaches a system comprising:
a memory device (FIG. 1A: memory chip 102); and
a processing device (FIG. 1: memory controller 105), operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising:
receiving a write command to program data to a block of a memory device (FIG. 1: when host 106 send to memory controller 105 a write command and data to be written, see 4:9-11);
identifying, using current position of a zone write pointer that identifies a next sequential write location within a zone of a zoned namespace, a wordline of the block that addresses a set of memory cells for writing the data (FIG. 7A: pointer 742 to identify word line of fragments in memory block 702 for writing data, where a zone is seen comprising word lines within the memory block namespace 702);
determining whether the identified wordline matches an entry in a data structure (e.g. when a selected word line is identified as bad word line, it is not selected for writing data, see 13:23-37); and
responsive to determining that the identified wordline matches the entry in the data structure, updating the zone write pointer to select a new wordline associated with the block (see 13:23-37).
Regarding independent claim 15, Berckmann teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a write command to program data to a block of a memory device (FIG. 1: when host 106 sends to memory controller 105 a write command and data to be written into memory chip 102, see 4:9-11);
identifying, using current position of a zone write pointer that identifies a next sequential write location within a zone of a zoned namespace, a wordline of the block that addresses a set of memory cells for writing the data (FIG. 7A: pointer 742 to identify word line of fragments in memory block 702 for writing data, where a zone is seen comprising word lines within the memory block namespace 702);
determining whether the identified wordline matches an entry in a data structure (e.g. when a selected word line is identified as bad word line, it is not selected for writing data, see 13:23-37); and
responsive to determining that the identified wordline matches the entry in the data structure, updating the zone write pointer to select a new wordline associated with the block (see 13:23-37).
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.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berckmann in view of US 9,570,177 to Choi (hereafter Choi).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Berckmann further teaches responsive to determining that a program fault occurred during a write operation to program the data to the new wordline (FIG. 8B: step 858, see 15:51-59). Berckmann does not teach the remaining limitations.
Choi teaches determining a number of wordlines referenced by the data structure that are associated with the block (FIG. 14: bad page count); and responsive to determining that the number of wordlines fails to satisfy a threshold criterion (FIG. 14: step 1420, see 19:60-65, when the count of bad word line(s) < a threshold, see 18:15-28), releasing a spare wordline to be available for write operations (FIG. 12: releasing WLi ... WLi+2 for steps 1430-1450 of FIG. 14, also see 18:15-28 and 19:1-11).
Since Berckmann and Choi are all from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Choi would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Berckmann.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the number of failed wordlines to a predetermined threshold as suggested by Choi before considering the block to be a bad block, in order to reduce early block retirement and improve data storage capacity.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Choi teaches responsive to determining that the number of wordlines satisfies the threshold criterion, marking the block in a grown bad block (GBB) data structure (FIG. 14: step 1460, see 18:15-22).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Berckmann teaches responsive to determining that the number of wordlines fails to satisfy the threshold criterion, listing the new wordline in the data structure (see 15:65-16:6).
Regarding dependent claim 5, even though Choi teaches responsive to determining that the number of wordlines satisfies the threshold criterion, marking the block in a grown bad block (GBB) data structure (FIG. 14: step 1460, see 18:15-22) instead of removing all entries associated with the block from the data structure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to realize that when a block is GBB, data structure should be removed because it is no longer need for the GBB.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Choi teaches maintaining a spare wordline data structure, wherein each entry in the spare wordline data structure is associated with an inactive wordline capable of replacing a defective wordline in the block (FIG. 12: e.g. WLi-WLi+2, normal pages not programmed with data are seen as spare wordline, see 19:1-11).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Choi teaches responsive to determining that the identified wordline fails to match the entry in the data structure, programming the data to the wordline (i.e. when the wordline is between the starting and ending wordlines).
Regarding dependent claims 9-14, 16-20, see rejections applied to claims 2-7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Berckman clearly teaches a zone write pointer identified where the next sequential write within a zone of a zoned namespace. Memory block 702 is seen as a zoned namespace among plurality of memory blocks in the memory core 103 of memory chip 102 of FIG. 1A.
Claims 1-20 maintain rejected for the reason set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANTHU NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached at (571) 272-1869. 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.
September 13, 2026
/VANTHU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights