DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 11/15/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0158289 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449, filed 08/02/2024, 05/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Instant application Figure 2 is identical to SK hynix Inc’s previously published patent No. 11,693,771 B2.
These references have been added to form PTO-892 to reflect consideration. Applicant is reminded of the helpful scenarios in MPEP 2004, such as scenario 7 (characterizing information), and MPEP 2011(on how to correct the record).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use recite functional language but are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Apparatus claim 1’s “memory controller” that is “configured to” perform recited operations;
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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, 7-8, 10 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (US 7,477,547 B2).
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Lin, for example in Figs. 1-11, discloses a storage device (e.g., blocks 11, 13, 19; in Fig. 1A related in Figs. 1B-11) comprising:
a memory device (e.g., memory array I.C; in Fig. 1A related in Figs. 1B-11) including a memory block (e.g., block; in Figs. 2-6 related in Figs. 1, 7-11) including a plurality of physical pages (e.g., pages; in Figs. 4, 9 related in Figs. 1-3, 5-8, 10-11); and
a memory controller (e.g., memory controller 19; in Fig. 1A related in Figs. 1B-11) configured to group the plurality of physical pages into a plurality of stress physical page groups according to a stress level of each of the plurality of physical pages (e.g., stress level 0, 10, 20; in Figs. 9A-9C related in Figs. 1-8, 10-11), the stress level associated with read disturb (see for example in Figs. 9A-9C related in Figs. 1-8, 10-11), and perform a garbage collection operation on each of the plurality of stress physical page groups, based on the stress level (see Col. 3, lines 46-51 and Col. 12, lines 7-14). The structure in of the prior art (Lin) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Lin, for example in Figs. 21-11, discloses wherein the plurality of stress physical page groups are predetermined in a manufacturing process of the memory device to be set in firmware (e.g., in block 39; in Fig. 1B related in Figs. 1A -11). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Lin) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Lin, for example in Figs. 1-11, discloses wherein a number of the plurality of stress physical page groups included in the memory block is equal to a number of stress physical page groups included in another memory block different from the memory block (e.g., stress physical page; in Figs. 2, 4-9, 1, 3, 10-11). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Lin) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 10, Lin, for example in Figs. 1-11, discloses wherein at least two stress physical page groups among the plurality of stress physical page groups include different numbers of physical pages (e.g., stress level; in Figs. 9A-9C related in Figs. 1-8, 10-11). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Lin) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts of record fail to teach or suggest a storage device as recited in claim 2, and particularly, wherein the memory controller performs a test read operation on at least one weak physical page in a target stress physical page group among the plurality of stress physical page groups, and performs the garbage collection operation of moving, to another memory block, valid data stored in the target stress physical page group when a number of fail bits detected in the test read operation exceeds a reference value.
Regarding claim 6, the prior arts of record fail to teach or suggest a storage device as recited in claim 6, and particularly, wherein the memory controller performs a test read operation on a target stress physical page group among the plurality of stress physical page groups when a read count of the memory block reaches a first test read count, and re-performs the test read operation on the target stress physical page group when the read count of the memory block reaches a second test read count, and when a number of fail bits detected in the test read operation is a reference value or less.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. Lin (US 7,477,547 B2), taken individually or in combination, do not teach the claimed invention having the following limitations, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations:
Per claim 12, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combination in the prior art to the step of selecting a target stress physical page group among the plurality of stress physical page groups, based on the stress level; performing a first garbage collection operation on the target stress physical page group; receiving, from a host, an access request after the first garbage collection operation is performed, the access request being for the other stress physical page group different from the target stress physical page group among the plurality of stress physical page groups; and performing a second garbage collection operation on the other stress physical page group after a response to the access request is transmitted to the host, in combination with the other limitations.
Per claim 17, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combination in the prior art to a memory controller comprising: a stress information storage configured to store stress information on a plurality of stress physical page groups obtained by grouping a plurality of physical pages included in a memory block according to a stress level of each of the plurality of physical pages, the stress level associated with read disturb; a read controller configured to perform a test read operation on at least one weak physical page in a target stress physical page group among the plurality of stress physical page groups; and a garbage controller configured to perform a garbage collection operation on each of the plurality of stress physical page groups, based on the stress level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THA-O H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7357. 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, ALEXANDER SOFOCLEOUS can be reached at 571-272-0635. 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.
/THA-O H BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825 02/20/2026