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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1/29/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1-15 and 17-23 are still pending. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, and 21 are amended. Claim 16 is canceled. Claim 23 is new.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-11, 15, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erez et al. (US PGPub 2024/0078015, hereafter referred to as Erez).
Regarding claim 1, Erez teaches a method by a memory system, comprising: writing data to the memory system based at least in part on a ratio of writing information into single-level cell word lines and writing information into multiple level cell word lines (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], states that a ratio of what type of memory (SLC, TLC, or QLC) the data for the large write can be calculated based on the incoming write and the available space in each type of memory. Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], states once the ratio of which memory types to write to is determined the system will write the data to the respective memories), determining whether one or more operating parameters of the memory system satisfy one or more thresholds (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], states the host can plan for large writes meaning the data to be written would have to be satisfy a certain threshold to qualify), adjusting the ratio based at least in part on the one or more operating parameters satisfying at least one threshold of the one or more thresholds (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], as stated previously, a ratio of what type of memory (SLC, TLC, or QLC) the data for the large write can be calculated based on the incoming write and the available space in each type of memory. Paragraph [0032] also states that the system can switch to a different write schedule once the large write volume is completed meaning that the ratio gets adjusted based on the parameters when a particular write volume comes in), and writing data to one or more single-level cell word lines of the memory system, one or more multiple level cell word lines of the memory system, or both based at least in part on adjusting the ratio (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], as stated previously).
Regarding claim 5, Eres teach all the limitations to claim 1. Eres further teaches wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether an amount of free space in a memory drive of the memory system satisfies a free space threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the amount of free space and the one or more thresholds comprise the free space threshold (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], the amount of free space available for each type of memory can be used in the calculation of the ratio).
Regarding claim 6, Eres teach all the limitations to claim 1. Eres further teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise a quantity of commands in a command queue, a size of one or more commands in the command queue, a host delay, an amount of free space in a memory drive of the memory system, or any combination thereof (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], as stated in the rejection to claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Eres teach all the limitations to claim 1. Eres further teaches wherein the ratio comprises an integer value, a percentage, or a decimal value (Paragraph [0033] and [0039], states the ratio can be represented by integer values).
Regarding claim 10, Eres teach all the limitations to claim 1. Eres further teaches wherein the multiple level cell word lines comprise tri-level cell (TLC) word lines or quad-level cell (QLC) word lines (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], the memory can be TLC or MLC).
Regarding claims 11, 15, 19, and 20, claims are the computer readable medium claims associated with claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10. Since Eres teaches all the limitations to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10, it also teaches all the limitations to claims 11, 15, 19, and 20; therefore the rejections to claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 also apply to claims 11, 15, 19, and 20.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is the system claim associated with claim 1. Since Erez teaches all the limitations to claim 1 and Erez further teaches one or more memory devices and processing circuitry coupled with the one or more memory devices (Fig. 1, shows the controller and flash memory devices), they also teach all the limitations to claim 21; therefore the rejection to claim 1 also applies to claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Eres teach all the limitations to claim 1. Eres further teaches wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise: a quantity of commands in a command queue, wherein an increase in the quantity of commands in the command queue is associated with an increase in the ratio, a size of one or more commands in the command queue, wherein an increase in the size of the one or more commands is associated with an increase in the ratio, a host delay, wherein an increase in the host delay is associated with a reduction of the ratio, or an amount of free space associated with at least the multiple level cell word lines of the memory system, wherein an increase in the free space is associated with an increase in the ratio (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033], as stated in the rejection to claim 1, the amount of available space in the memories can be used to determine the ratio. Paragraph [0039], gives an example where the amount of space in the first memory can be less than or equal to the total size of the writes. Paragraphs [0041] expands upon this by stating that if the space is larger than the writes the writes can be routed entirely to the first memory. One of ordinary skill would recognize that this holds true for the available space in the other memories as well).
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, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez in view of Tan.
Regarding claim 2, Erez teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Erez does not teach wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a size of one or more commands in a command queue satisfies a command size threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the size of the one or more commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the command size threshold.
Tan teaches wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a size of one or more commands in a command queue satisfies a command size threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the size of the one or more commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the command size threshold (Paragraph [0070], states that the size of a write can be used to determine whether the write command is written to an SLC or TLC block). Since both Erez and Tan teach the use of operating parameters to determine where to direct write operations it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Erez to use the parameters as taught in Tan to obtain the predictable result of wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a size of one or more commands in a command queue satisfies a command size threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the size of the one or more commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the command size threshold.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 2. Since Erez and Tan teach all the limitations to claim 2, they also teach all the limitations to claim 12; therefore the rejection to claim 2 also applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is the system claim associated with claim 2. Since Erez and Tan teach all the limitations to claim 2 and Erez further teaches one or more memory devices and processing circuitry coupled with the one or more memory devices (Fig. 1, shows the controller and flash memory devices), they also teach all the limitations to claim 22; therefore the rejection to claim 2 also applies to claim 22.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez in view of Bi (US PGPub 2022/0404976).
Regarding claim 3, Erez teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Erez does not teach wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a quantity of commands in a command queue satisfies a queue threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the quantity of commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the queue threshold.
Bi teaches wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a quantity of commands in a command queue satisfies a queue threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the quantity of commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the queue threshold (Paragraphs [0012]-[0013], states that the number of commands in the command queue (queue depth) can be used to determine the operating mode of the memory (what type of cell to use)). Since both Erez and Bi teach the use of operating parameters to determine where to direct write operations it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Erez to use the parameters as taught in Bi to obtain the predictable result of wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a quantity of commands in a command queue satisfies a queue threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the quantity of commands and the one or more thresholds comprise the queue threshold.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 3. Since Erez and Bi teach all the limitations to claim 3, they also teach all the limitations to claim 13; therefore the rejection to claim 3 also applies to claim 13.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez in view of Bensity et al. (US PGPub 2018/0275872, hereafter referred to as Bensity).
Regarding claim 4, Erez teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Erez does not teach wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a host delay satisfies a host delay threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the host delay and the one or more thresholds comprise the host delay threshold.
Bensity teaches wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a host delay satisfies a host delay threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the host delay and the one or more thresholds comprise the host delay threshold (Paragraphs [0029] and [0095], states that host latency (delay) can be used as a parameter to determine when to post an interrupt meaning the latency would have to satisfy a threshold of some kind for the interrupt to trigger). Since both Erez and Bensity teach the use of operating parameters it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements according to known methods by modifying the teachings of Erez to use the parameters presented in Bensity to obtain the predictable result of wherein determining whether the one or more operating parameters satisfy the at least one threshold comprises: determining whether a host delay satisfies a host delay threshold, wherein the one or more operating parameters comprise the host delay and the one or more thresholds comprise the host delay threshold.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 4. Since Erez and Bensity teach all the limitations to claim 4, they also teach all the limitations to claim 14; therefore the rejection to claim 4 also applies to claim 14.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez in view of Korean Patent KR 102434989 (hereafter referred to as KR Pat).
Regarding claim 7, Erez teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Erez does not teach wherein adjusting the ratio comprises: identifying, based at least in part on the one or more operating parameters, an index in a mode register, wherein the index indicates the ratio corresponding to one or more ranges of operating parameters comprising the one or more operating parameters.
KR Pat teaches wherein determining the ratio comprises: identifying, based at least in part on the one or more operating parameters, an index in a mode register, wherein the index indicates the ratio corresponding to one or more ranges of operating parameters comprising the one or more operating parameters (pg. 12, Paragraph [0006], states a mode register with an index may be used to set the division ratio). Since both Erez and KR Pat teach determining a ratio it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of determining the ratio of Erez with that of KR Pat to obtain the predictable result of wherein adjusting the ratio comprises: identifying, based at least in part on the one or more operating parameters, an index in a mode register, wherein the index indicates the ratio corresponding to one or more ranges of operating parameters comprising the one or more operating parameters.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 7. Since Erez and KR Pat teach all the limitations to claim 7, they also teach all the limitations to claim 17; therefore the rejection to claim 7 also applies to claim 17.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erez in view of Hyun et al. (US PGPub 2016/0210050, hereafter referred to as Hyun).
Regarding claim 8, Erez teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Erez does not teach wherein adjusting the ratio comprises: determining the ratio in accordance with an algorithm, the algorithm comprising a weighted average of the one or more operating parameters.
Hyun teaches wherein determining the ratio comprises: determining the ratio in accordance with an algorithm, the algorithm comprising a weighted average of the one or more operating parameters (Paragraph [0087], [0126], and [0129], states that the ratio can be determined using a weighted average). Since both Erez and Hyun teach determining a ratio it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the method of determining the ratio of Erez with that of Hyun to obtain the predictable result of wherein adjusting the ratio comprises: determining the ratio in accordance with an algorithm, the algorithm comprising a weighted average of the one or more operating parameters.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the computer readable medium claim associated with claim 8. Since Erez and Hyun teach all the limitations to claim 8, they also teach all the limitations to claim 18; therefore the rejection to claim 8 also applies to claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Erez does not teach the amended limitations to the independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph [0032], it states that the write schedule can change after the large write volume is completed. It also states throughout and seen in Fig. 2B and 3 that when the system is notified of an incoming write volume that the ratio will be determined based on the parameters at that time meaning it is adjusted each time such an event occurs and will reoccur each time the system is informed of a new write event. Therefore the rejections still hold.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS A PAPERNO whose telephone number is (571)272-8337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:30-5 EST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/NICHOLAS A. PAPERNO/Examiner, Art Unit 2132