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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) determining a first set of parity information, determining whether NAND is associated with a first RAIN procedure, determining a second set of parity information, and omitting determination of the second set of parity information.
All three determining limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a controller, a host system and NAND memory, recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The claim additionally cites receiving host data from a host system, which is considered mere data gathering, and considered extra-solution activity that does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites the types of RAIN procedures, and is considered extra-solution activity and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the protection capability of the RAIN procedure, and is considered extra-solution activity and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 recites determining the RAIN procedure based on a PEC, ERS or RBER, and is a step that may additionally be considered a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6 recites receiving configuration information from a host system, which is considered mere data gathering, and considered extra-solution activity that does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites determining whether the portion of NAND is associated with a second RAIN procedure, and is a step that may additionally be considered a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites determining whether the portion of NAND is associated with a second RAIN procedure, and is a step that may additionally be considered a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim additionally recites performing an XOR operation, which may be considered an additional judicial exception of a mathematic formula.
Claims 8-11, 13-19, and 21-24 recite similar claim limitations to those of claims 1-3 and 5-7, and are rejected using the same interpretations as above.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19 and 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0086696) in view of Hartz et al. (US 2023/0058813) and further in view of Achtenberg et al. (US 2017/0255517).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a memory system, comprising: a controller configured to:
receive, from a host system, host data to be written to a portion of a NAND memory, the portion comprising all or a portion of a memory cell, page, sub-block, or block of NAND memory [see paragraphs 42-43; write data received to program to a page of memory];
determine, for the host data, a first set of parity information that is associated with a first redundant array of independent NAND (RAIN) procedure [see paragraphs 17 & 43; first RAIN base parity generated for unencoded data];
Chen does not expressly disclose determining, based at least in part of an evaluation of one or more characteristics of the portion of the NAND memory, whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with a second RAIN procedure different from the first RAIN procedure; and perform one of:
determining, for the host data, a second set of parity information that is associated with the second RAIN procedure when it is determined that the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure; or
omitting determination of the second set of parity information when it is determined that the portion of the NAND memory is not associated with the second RAIN procedure.
Hartz discloses a RAIN protected storage device [see paragraph 11]. An AI accelerator can determine the RAIN protection scheme (which determines the parity data) is based on the data that describes failures or lack of failures experienced by stripes, blocks, and/or word lines of the memory devices of the memory sub-system. Portions of the data that experience a certain amount of failures (interpreted as one or more characteristics of a portion of memory) may be selected to apply a different (second) RAIN protection scheme with a different amount of parity data. If the portion of memory is not experiencing failures, the inputs to the AI accelerator would not change and necessitate a different level of parity [see paragraphs 37 & 43-46]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art utilize the adjustable RAIN protection of Hartz in the system of Chen.
The motivation for doing so would have been so that RAIN performance can be activated and/or tightened in cases where it is needed [see Hartz, paragraph 13].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hartz with Chen for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19 and 23-24.
The combination of Chen and Hartz does not expressly disclose the second set of parity information comprises extra parity information.
Achtenberg discloses a non-volatile memory system implementing redundancy techniques. When a portion non-volatile memory experiences a high error rate, the redundant protection scheme may utilize additional second parity information [see paragraphs 5 and 26].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the extra parity information of Achtenberg in the system of Chen and Hartz.
The motivation for doing so would have been to protect against memory defects or complete failures [see Achtenberg, paragraph 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Achtenberg with Chen and Hartz for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19 and 23-24.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the memory system of claim 1, wherein a protection capability of the second RAIN procedure is higher than a protection capability of the first RAIN procedure [see Chen, paragraphs 14, 20 & 44; second tier parity offers higher protection than base parity].
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the memory system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to determine whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure, is configured to determine whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure based on at least one of:
a program-erase cycle (PEC) count associated with the portion of the NAND memory, error recovery statistics (ERS) associated with the portion of the NAND memory, a raw bit error rate (RBER) associated with the portion of the NAND memory [see Achtenberg, paragraphs 5 and 26; second redundancy procedure using extra parity used based on error rate].
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the memory system of claim 5, wherein the controller is further configured to receive, from the host system, configuration information indicating that one or more of the PEC count, the ERS, or the RBER are to be used to determine whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure [see Achtenberg, paragraphs 5 and 26; second redundancy procedure using extra parity used based on error rate].
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the memory system of claim 1, wherein the host data is associated with a first RAIN stripe associated with the first RAIN procedure [see Chen, paragraphs 12 & 19; host data associated with stripe of memory],
wherein the controller, to determine whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure, are configured to determine that the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure [see Chen, paragraph 44; second tier RAIN parity data generated for data to be stored on different planes],
wherein the host data is associated with a second RAIN stripe associated with the second RAIN procedure, and wherein a first payload associated with the first RAIN stripe is different than a second payload associated with the second RAIN stripe [see Chen, paragraph 44; second tier RAIN parity data generated for data to be stored on different planes].
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the memory system of claim 1, wherein the controller, to determine whether the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure, are configured to determine that the portion of the NAND memory is associated with the second RAIN procedure [see Chen, paragraph 44; second tier RAIN parity data generated for data to be stored on different planes], and
wherein the controller, to determine the second set of parity information, are configured to use an exclusive or (XOR) operation that uses the host data as an input to the XOR operation [see Chen, paragraph 47 second tier parity data generated with XOR operations on the data].
Claims 7-9, 11, 13-17, 19 and 21-24 recite similar claim limitations to claims 1, 3 and 5-8 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hartz and Achtenberg, and further in view of Feng (US 2025/0298741).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chen, Hartz and Achtenberg discloses the memory system of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose the first RAIN procedure is
associated with a two-word-line RAIN procedure, and
wherein the second RAIN procedure is associated with a block RAIN procedure.
Feng discloses a RAIN protection system which utilizes two wordline protection schemes and plane RAIN protection schemes (interpreted as block RAIN) [see paragraphs 45-49].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the 2 wordline RAIN and plane RAIN of Feng in the system of Chen and Hartz and Achtenberg.
The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the utilization of of the total memory space [see Feng, paragraph 48].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Feng with Chen and Hartz and Achtenberg for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2, 10 and 18.
Claims 10 and 18 recite similar claim limitations to claim 2 and is rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hartz and Achtenberg, and further in view of Shappir et al. (US 2020/0005874).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chen, Hartz and Achtenberg disclose the memory system of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combination does not expressly disclose the controller are further configured to store the second set of parity information in another portion of the NAND memory, wherein the other portion of the NAND memory is associated with at least one of: a grown bad block allowance associated with NAND memory, an unmapped portion of the NAND memory following a remapping operation of the NAND memory.
Shappir discloses a nonvolatile memory system in which redundancy data may be stored to a spare (unmapped) block [see paragraphs 85-87].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the spare blocks to store the parity data of Chen and Hartz and Achtenberg.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide better recovery capabilities [see Shappir, paragraph 86].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shappir with Chen and Hartz and Achtenberg for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4, 12 and 20.
Claims 12 and 20 recite similar claim limitations to claim 4 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-24 under Chen in view of Hartz have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Achtenberg.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights