DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing 12/19/2025. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 6, 9, 10-17, and 19-20 contain allowable subject matter.
Claim 18 is cancelled.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. PGPub No. 20190196958) in view of Kwak et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11733883).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches,
A storage device comprising: a non-volatile memory device including a plurality of memory blocks (the memory device is non-volatile and incudes a plurality of memory blocks [0034]);
and a storage controller configured to: determine a plurality of error bit counts, each of the plurality of error bit counts indicating a number of error bits of a respective one of the plurality of memory blocks (the system may determine a plurality of number of error bits ("error bit counts") for error blocks in the plurality of error blocks [0065; Fig. 4, S501]);
generate, based on the plurality of error bit counts, reclaim group information associated with a plurality of reclaim groups, the reclaim group information indicating, for each of the plurality of memory blocks, a respective assigned reclaim group from among the plurality of reclaim groups, wherein each of the plurality of reclaim groups is associated with a respective error bit count range (where read reclaim operations, including group placement [0065], are performed according to damage degree ("reclaim group information") [0063]; blocks with error information (including number of error bits, or "error bit counts") higher than a threshold may be placed as "first victim blocks" and higher than a second threshold as "second victim blocks" [0065; Fig. 4, S501]; the examiner notes that therefore, reclaim groups are formed and assigned according to the error bit range);
and control the non-volatile memory device to perform a respective read reclaim operation for each of the plurality of reclaim groups based on the reclaim group information including a plurality of reclaim periods respectively corresponding to the plurality of reclaim groups (a read reclaim operation may be performed for each of the first queue and second queue ("groups") [0095-0096;Fig. 4, S561]; where placement in the first and second queue is according the reclaim information [0063; 0065]; the read reclaim of the first and second queues are performed according to a priority order (hence, distinct reclaim periods "corresponding to the plurality of reclaim groups") [0101]),
wherein for each of the plurality of reclaim groups, the respective read reclaim operation is … performed … according to a different reclaim period (the read reclaim for the first and second queues ("groups") are then selectively performed [Fig. 4; 0081]; and further the read reclaim of the first and second queues are performed according to a priority order, hence "different reclaim period" [0101]).
Lee does not appear to disclose and Kwak teaches,
the respective read reclaim operation is repeatedly performed upon expiration of a time interval (where a method of performing maintenance operations (see S170, Fig. 3) is performed at regularly spaced intervals and repeated upon each completion of the method [Col. 12, lines 3-20]; where a timer (1332) is employed to initiate step 130a (the beginning of maintenance operation method) [Col. 12, lines 16-19]; and where the maintenance operation is also referred to as a "data retention operation" [Col. 15, lines 29-31]; and where the use of timer (1332) initiates the data retention operations upon expiration of the timer [Col. 16, lines 4-11]; where the data retention operation is a read reclaim operation [Col. 17, lines 1-5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the read reclaim method incorporating priority queues of Lee to incorporate performing read reclaim operations according to a timer as disclosed by Kwak. The resulting combination allows for regular prevention of data loss by performing data retention operations; by employing use of a timer, the resiliency of the system is improved even in situations where a host fails to recognize the status associated with a storage device's operation, therefore improving reliability, performance, and management efficiency [Kwak; Col. 16, lines 7-11; Col. 11, lines 32-53].
Regarding Claim 2, Lee teaches,
The storage device of claim 1, wherein: the reclaim group information includes reclaim period information indicating a respective reclaim period for each of the plurality of reclaim groups (the read reclaim operation may be performed according to damage degree ("reclaim period information") which includes read reclaim queue ("group") [0063]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee teaches,
The storage device of claim 1, wherein: the storage controller is configured to generate the reclaim group information based on comparing the plurality of error bit counts with reference error bit count ranges (the queue is selected ("reclaim group information") by, at least in part, comparing the error information values to at least a first and second threshold (thus "error bit count ranges") corresponding to first and second queues [0065]).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee teaches,
The storage device of claim 3, wherein: the plurality of reclaim groups includes: a first reclaim group including a first set of memory blocks among the plurality of memory blocks, the first set of memory blocks having associated error bit counts falling within a first reference error bit count range (a first queue ("group") is formed by memory blocks whose error information is equal to or greater than a (first) threshold ("first reference error bit count") [0065]);
and a second reclaim group including a second set of memory blocks among the plurality of memory blocks, the second set of memory blocks having associated error bit counts falling within a second reference error bit count range (a second queue ("group") is formed by memory blocks whose error information is equal to or greater than a (second) threshold ("second reference error bit count") [0065]).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kwak, further in view of Park (U.S. PGPub No. 20170168891).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee does not appear to disclose and Park teaches,
The storage device of claim 4, wherein: the respective read reclaim operation for the first reclaim group is performed according to a first reclaim period and the respective read reclaim operation for the second reclaim group is performed according to a second reclaim period different from the first reclaim period (reclaim operations may be performed at two distinct periods for a first and second time period [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the storage device read reclaim device including a plurality of groups of Lee in view of Kwak to incorporate the storage device read reclaim feature of performing read reclaim for respective groups during different, distinct time periods. The resulting combination of allowing reclaim periods to be specific time periods allows for the reclaim manager to perform reclaim operations without performance degradation [Park; 0042])
Regarding Claim 7, Lee does not appear to disclose and Park teaches,
The storage device of claim 1, wherein the storage controller is configured to determine the plurality of error bit counts based on a reference program state, wherein the reference program state is one of a plurality of program states recognized by the storage controller (the system includes program states ("reference") including threshold voltage read disturbances [0067]; where error bits may be detected and counted accordingly [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the storage device read reclaim device detecting bit errors of Lee in view of Kwak to include the storage device read reclaim feature of detecting bit errors using program state to monitor threshold voltage variations of Park. The resulting combination allows for secured integrity of data stored in the source block [Park; 0039].
Regarding Claim 8, Lee does not appear to disclose and Park teaches,
The storage device of claim 7, wherein the storage controller is configured to: for each of the plurality of memory blocks, determine a respective associated error bit count based on a number of memory cells of that memory block that have threshold voltages lower than a read voltage associated with the reference program state and higher than an offset voltage (when threshold voltages are changed, this may be indicative of an error and the ECC circuit may detect error bits [0038]; where the error bits are compared to a reference value, and therefore counted [0038]; a type of change to the threshold voltage that is stored is a threshold voltage read lower than that of a normal state [0069]).
The same motivation for Claim 7 also applies to Claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 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 the Examiner’s statement for indicating allowable subject matter:
The subject matter of Claims 6 and 9 remains allowable for the reasons previously provided.
Claims 10-17 and 19-20 are allowed. The following is the Examiner’s statement for indicating allowable subject matter:
Independent Claim 10 has been amended to include previously indicated allowable subject matter of Claim 11. Accordingly, independent Claim 10 and corresponding dependent Claims 11-16 are allowed for the same reasons as previously provided for Claim 11.
Independent Claim 17 has been amended to include previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 18. Accordingly, independent Claim 17 and corresponding dependent Claims 19-20 are allowed for the same reasons as previously provided for Claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on Page 13 that Lee fails to teach or suggest [with enumeration added by Examiner], “(1) For each of the plurality of reclaim groups based on the reclaim group information including a plurality of reclaim periods respectively corresponding to the plurality of reclaim groups, (2) Wherein for each of the plurality of reclaim groups, the respective read reclaim operation is repeatedly performed upon expiration of a time interval according to a different reclaim period.”
While no specific argument is provided as to why Lee fails to disclose (1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Lee does not teach this limitation. The Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality of reclaim periods respectively corresponding to the plurality of reclaim groups” does not exclude non-fixed reclaim periods. Upon execution of the read reclaim method of Lee, the first and second priority queues (groups) are treated independently as demonstrated by a priority order of the respective groups [Lee; 0081 and 0101]. Accordingly each reclaim group corresponds to a respective reclaim period, even if the queueing time for each group may differ.
Applicant’s arguments regarding (2) with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kwak under 35 U.S.C. 103. Please see the rejection on Claim 1 above for Kwak disclosing repeatedly performing read reclaim operations upon expiration of a time interval.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 20240176700) discloses error bit counts linearly related to read counts [Fig. 4], where read counts are used in a plurality of ranges to determine next steps including read reclaim [0110-0111].
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 AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113