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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
The RCE filed 03/19/2026 is entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7; “receive limitation,” second-to-last line: change to “…one-time [[programing]] programming (OTP) memory device to the [[non- volatile]] non-volatile…”
Remove space between “non-“ and “volatile”
Claim 7; “determine” limitation – end of claim: change all instances of “one-time programming (OTP) memory device” to “OTP memory device”
“OTP” already defined in “receive” limitation
Claim 10: change to “…the at least one memory block…”
For consistency with Claim 7
Claim 13; “in response to” limitation, last two lines: change all instances of “one-time programming (OTP) memory device” to “OTP memory device”
“OTP” already defined in “receive” limitation
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9, 11 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 9 recites the limitation "the block status data" in line 3. It is unclear which block status data is being referred to as each of the following corresponds to block status data within the non-volatile memory:
Claim 9, lines 1-2: “the block status data of the non-volatile memory [stored] within the controller”
Claim 7; “determine” limitation, lines 1-2: “the block status data currently in the non-volatile memory”
Claim 7; “determination” limitation, lines 2-3: “the block status data currently stored in the one-time programming (OTP) memory device”
Claim 7; “in response to” limitation, lines 3-4: “previously stored block status data currently in the one-time programming (OTP) memory device”
Claim 7, “in response to” limitation, line 3: “the [reset] block status data currently in the non-volatile memory”
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the block status data" in line 2. It is unclear which block status data is being referred to:
Claim 7, “determination” limitation, lines 1-2: “the block status data currently in the non-volatile memory”
Claim 7, “determination” limitation, lines 2-3: “the blocks status data currently stored in the OTP memory device”
Claim 7, “in response to” limitation, line 3: “the [reset] block status data currently in the non-volatile memory”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20140089563 A1, hereinafter “Wu (2014)”) in view of JUNG et al. (US 20150169333 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu (2014) discloses a method (Fig. 1, 3), comprising:
sending a command, from a controller, to access at least one block of a first memory device (Fig. 3 and [0038]-[0039]: initialization logic 311 ([0061]: which is a circuit, hence “controller”) initiates self-initialization (“a command”), which utilizes configuration settings information (CSI) 105-1 stored in memory device 110-1 to initialize configuration buffer 321-1. [0026]: CSI 105-1 stored in storage cells, thus self-initialization invoked by initialization logic 311 accesses storage cells of memory device 110-1)…;
receiving a failure message from the first memory device due to the at least one block being tagged as a bad block in the block status data of the first memory device ([0043]-[0044]: status detection logic 150 queries memory devices 110 to determine whether any memory devices 110 were not properly configured. [0025]-[0026]: in response to the query, status detection logic 150 receives an indication from memory device 110-1 that initialization failed. Failed initialization may occur due to corrupt storage cells storing the configuration settings information 105-1, hence the cells are tagged/identified as bad/corrupt (also see [0046]: block failure that ECC cannot correct – further emphasizing bad block tag)); and
in response to receiving the failure message, immediately resetting the block status data corresponding to the plurality of blocks stored in the first memory device by reloading, from the second memory device to the first memory device, the block status data corresponding to the plurality of blocks ([0056]-[0057]: in response to detecting the failure of memory device 110-1, a backup copy CSI 205-1 form memory device 110-2 is retrieved and is used to overwrite CSI 105-1 of memory device 110-1. As described above, CSI 105-1 stored in storage cells, hence refers to configuration setting/status of a plurality of cells/blocks).
Wu (2014) does not teach:
wherein block status data corresponding to a plurality blocks of the first memory device is initially loaded from a second memory device to the first memory device
However, JUNG teaches
wherein block status data corresponding to a plurality blocks of the first memory device is initially loaded from a second memory device to the first memory device ([0113]-[0114]: loads BIOS 121 stored in ROM to main memory 200. Processor 110 executes BIOS 121 and performs initialization operation of computer system 10. In the initialization operation, BIOS 121 performs POST on main memory 200 and storage device 300 to initialize main memory 200 and storage device 300 and check for malfunctions. Main memory 200 may be implemented by DRAM, SRAM, flash, PRAM, MRAM, RRAM, etc. DRAM is known in the art as cell/block-based)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Wu (2014) and JUNG by implementing the BIOS loading taught by JUNG. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for obtaining self-initialization data and perform POST on the to-be-initialized memory device to check for malfunctions (JUNG: [0114]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wu (2014) in view of JUNG teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising retrieving the block status data from a one-time programming (OTP) portion of a memory device (JUNG: [0113]-[0114]: BIOS 121 loaded from ROM).
Regarding Claim 6, Wu (2014) in view of JUNG teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, further comprising reading and retrieving data from the at least one block of the first memory device subsequent to the reset (Wu (2014): [0058]: subsequent to the attempted overwrite, initialization logic 311-1 may attempt self-initialization of memory device 110-1 again. [0039]-[0040]: self-initialization involves accessing CSI 105-1 stored in memory device 110-1 to initialize configuration buffer 321-1. [0026]: CSI stored in storage cells/blocks. Thus, after overwriting/resetting the corrupted CSI 105-1 cells (see above), self-initialization is repeated, which reads and retrieves CSI from memory device 110-1 to initialize buffer 321-1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2014) in view of JUNG, in further view of Wu (US 11023320 B2, hereinafter “Wu (2021)”).
Regarding Claim 3, Wu (2014) in view of JUNG teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above, wherein the block status data is stored within… the first memory device ([0038]: CSI 105-1 stored in memory device 110-1).
Wu (2014) does not disclose:
…stored within complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) latches of the first memory device.
However, Wu (2021) teaches:
storing data within complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) latches of the first memory device (Fig. 1 and Col 4, lines 21-30 and lines 55-66: media access circuitry (CMOS) 108 is a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor latch. CMOS circuitry 108 contains memory scratch pads 132 to store data read from memory media 110. Therefore, CMOS is capable of storing data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Wu (2014), JUNG, and Wu (2021) by using the CMOS latch and scratch pads taught by Wu (2021) to store CSI taught by Wu (2014). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to provide faster read and write access times (Wu (2021): Col 4, lines 55-67).
Claim 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2014), in view of JUNG, in further view of Flynn et al. (US 20090282301 A1, hereinafter “Flynn”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wu (2014) in view of JUNG teaches the method of claim 1, as referenced above.
Wu (2014) in view of JUNG does not teach:
further comprising comparing data of the block status data associated with the at least one block of the first memory device to data of the block status data within the second memory device.
However, Wu (2014) in view of JUNG, in further view of Flynn teaches:
further comprising comparing data of the block status data associated with the at least one block of the first memory device to data of the block status data within the second memory device (Flynn: [0097]: compares two or more bad block logs, determines if the bad block logs are consistent, corrects the inconsistent bad block log. Wu (2014): [0056]: stores CSI 105-1 and 205-1 on memory devices 110-1 and 110-2, respectively, wherein CSI 105-1 is overwritten by backup copy CSI 205-1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Wu (2014), JUNG, Flynn by implementing a consistency check before correcting/overwriting configuration data as taught by Flynn such as before overwriting CSI across two memory devices as taught by Wu (2014). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to maintain consistency across copies of configuration data (Flynn: [0097]-[0098]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wu (2014) in view of Flynn teaches the method of claim 4, as referenced above, further comprising writing data to the at least one block of the first memory device responsive to the data of the block status data associated with the at least one block of the first memory device not matching the block status data within the second memory device (Flynn: [0097]-[0098]: corrects an inconsistent bad block log if one of the bad block logs are inconsistent (i.e., logs do not reflect the same bad block data regardless of formatting). Wu (2014): [0056]-[0057]: overwrites CSI data from memory device 110-2 to memory device 110-1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 10, 12-20 are allowed.
Claim 9, 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The elements of Claims 7 and 13 were neither found through a search of prior art nor considered obvious by the Examiner. In particular, the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations and in the context of their claims as a whole:
Claim 7: “…determine a validity of the at least one block responsive to a comparison of the block status data currently in the non-volatile memory to the previously stored block status data currently stored in the one-time programming (OTP) memory device; and in response to the block status data currently in the non-volatile memory not matching the block status data from the one-time programming (OTP) memory, immediately resetting the block status data currently in the non-volatile memory by reloading previously stored block status data currently in the one-time programming (OTP) memory device to the non-volatile memory.”
“in response to receiving the failure message, immediately compare the block status data of the at least one block stored in the non-volatile memory to the block status data, currently stored in, the one-time programming (OTP) memory device; and reset the block status data of the at least one block by subsequently reloading the block status data from the OTP memory device to the non-volatile memory, responsive to the block status data of the at least one block not matching the block status data from the OTP memory device.”
The following references were found and considered by the Examiner to be the most-related prior art with regards to the claimed invention of the instant application:
Wu (2014)
JUNG
Flynn et al. (US 20090282301 A1)
Park (US 11036493 B2)
Wu (2014): Fig. 3; [0034]; [0037]; [0026]: non-volatile memory device 110-1 contains CSI 105-1 indicating how to initialize or configure memory device 110-1. CSI 105 stores config settings within storage cells. [0043]-[0047]: access controller 140 queries memory device 110-1 to retrieve status failure information 341-2 to determine if self-initialization failed. Initialization logic 311-1 sets appropriate flags in status info 341-1 to indicate failure. Failure may occur due to the block of memory allocated to store the config settings info 105 failed ([0026]: resulting in corrupted data). [0056]-[0057]: access controller 140 retrieves backup copy CSI 205-1 from memory device 110-2 and uses the backup copy to overwrite CSI 105-1 of memory device 110-1.
JUNG: [0113]: processor 110 loads BIOS 121 stored in ROM to the main memory 200. Loading interpreted as a write command. [0013]-[0114]: loads BIOS 121 from ROM to main memory 200. BIOS 121 loaded in the main memory 200 is executed by the processor and BIOS 121 performs initialization operation via POST to initialize and check whether main memory 200 and storage device 300 have malfunction. [0052]: main memory 200 may be implemented as flash memory. ROM is a type of OTP memory. Flash is a type of nonvolatile memory and is block-based. Obvious to combine with Wu (2014) by implementing the BIOS loading taught by JUNG to test whether a loaded CSI (e.g., BIOS) is able to initially a memory device (Wu (2014): [0032]: CSI 105-1 can be modified during field use; [0041]-[0047]: power up self-initialization to load CSI and control how NAND operates, etc.).
Flynn: [0097]: compares two or more bad block logs, determines if the bad block logs are consistent, corrects the inconsistent bad block log. Correcting encompasses detecting a validity of the block with inconsistent data. Wu (2014): [0056]: stores CSI 105-1 and 205-1 on memory devices 110-1 and 110-2, respectively, wherein CSI 105-1 is overwritten by backup copy CSI 205-1.
Park: Col 8, lines 14-25: uses initial bad blocks stored in OTP region 313 as backup blocks to store lifespan information initially stored in system region 312 to prevent loss of lifespan information. Col 9, lines 9-16: lifespan region is backed up to system region 312 after firmware upgrade. Fig. 1: NVM device 300 divided into three regions: (1) user region 311 containing blocks 0-n, (2) system region 312 containing lifespan information (Col 6, lines 54-63: read count, P/E cycle count of blocks o-n), and (3) OTP region. Although teaches backups may occur between NVM region and OTP region within a single device, non-obvious that the comparison in Flynn also occurs between NVM and OTP region despite both references occurring between copies of the same metadata, especially since Wu (2014) already stores backup copies on multiple memory devices.
Although conceptually similar to the claimed invention of the instant application, Wu (2014), JUNG, Flynn, and Park do not teach the limitations listed above. Additional modifications were deemed nonobvious by the Examiner.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Flynn – see above
Park – see above
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE MARIE NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
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, ASHISH THOMAS can be reached at (571) 272-0631. 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.
/C.M.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2114
/ASHISH THOMAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights