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
This Office action is in response to Applicant' s communication filed 2/9/2026 in response to the Office action dated 12/17/2025. Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 19-21 have been amended. Claims 5 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 17, and 19-23 are pending in this application.
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, 8, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200363965 A1) in view of Nam (US 20080201539 A1), and further in view of Rawal et al. (US 20190303028 A1), hereinafter Rawal, and Perry et al. (US 20100235605 A1), hereinafter Perry.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a storage device comprising: nonvolatile memory comprising a plurality of memory blocks in any one of a user area, a reserved area, and an over-provisioning (OP) area (Paragraphs 28, 36; Fig. 1, memory device 150 including nonvolatile memory comprises blocks within a user region, a redundancy [reserved] region, and a user overprovisioning region);
and a storage controller configured to perform a storage block management operation on the plurality of memory blocks (Paragraphs 29, 38; Fig. 1, block manager 48 of controller 130 replaces bad blocks).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the storage controller is further configured to: based on a memory block in the user area being detected as a bad block, determine whether a number of bad blocks is greater than a maximum number of bad blocks, and based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks, decrease a capacity of the user area by setting at least one user memory block in the user area as an unused block without transitioning to a read only mode and with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the user ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio.
However, Nam teaches wherein the storage controller is further configured to: based on a memory block in the user area being detected as a bad block, determine whether a number of bad blocks is greater than a maximum number of bad blocks (Paragraphs 60-61, 64; Fig. 5, steps S210-S220, a memory controller detects and counts a number of bad blocks and determines if the number of bad blocks exceeds a maximum), and
based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks, decrease a capacity of the user area (Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, steps S220, S270, if the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum, the storage is run at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half of its normal capacity))
by setting at least one user memory block in the user area as an unused block (Paragraphs 18, 49; Fig. 1, memory blocks in user space 124 that are set in abnormal mode are unwritable [unusable])
without transitioning to a read only mode (Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, steps S220, S270, running the storage at an abnormal capacity, where the storage device reads, writes, and deletes at a smaller than normal capacity).
Lee and Nam are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee to further include the exceedable bad block maximum and the decreasable user area according to the teachings of Nam. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve device lifespan and save costs by utilizing a part of the storage capacity even if the number of bad blocks exceeds a maximum (Nam, Paragraph 81).
Lee in view of Nam does not explicitly teach to decrease a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio.
However, Rawal teaches to decrease a capacity of the user area based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio (Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity), and
set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio (Paragraphs 64-65, 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to a read access pattern [use ratio] of a reader application meeting the upper storage utilization threshold, providing/connecting storage units for read-only access).
Lee, Nam, and Rawal are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam to further include the decreasing capacity of the user area based on a reference use ratio according to the teachings of Rawal. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve storage hardware utilization (Rawal, Paragraph 105).
Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal does not explicitly teach decrease a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is.
However, Perry teaches decrease a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is (Paragraphs 39, 42; Fig. 4, disconnecting/decreasing operative [user] block 406 from operative blocks 302 in order to maintain a minimum level 322 [maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area] of spare [OP] blocks 304).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, and Perry are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal to further include the decreasing of a user area while maintaining an OP capacity according to the teachings of Perry. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve storage operations by ensuring the storage device has adequate space for write operations while minimizing interruptions (Perry, Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry teaches the storage device of claim 1, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks being less than or equal to the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraphs 61, 64; Fig. 5; step S220, determining whether to perform normal operations based on the number of bad blocks not exceeding the maximum),
replace the memory block detected as the bad block with a memory block in the reserved area (Lee, Paragraph 38, replacing one of the bad blocks with a new memory block of the redundancy [reserved] region).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a storage device comprising: nonvolatile memory (Paragraph 28; Fig. 1, memory device 150 includes nonvolatile memory)
comprising a plurality of planes, each of the plurality of planes comprising a plurality of memory blocks (Paragraphs 46, 48-49; Fig. 1, block manager 48 manages multiple planes and blocks within memory device 150); and
a storage controller configured to perform a storage block management operation on each of the plurality of planes (Paragraphs 29, 38, 48-49; Fig. 1, block manager 48 of controller 130 replaces bad blocks within memory device 150 containing multiple planes),
wherein the plurality of memory blocks in each of the plurality of planes are in any one of a user area, a reserved area, and an over-provisioning (OP) area (Paragraph 36; Fig. 1, blocks are allocated in a user region, a redundancy [reserved] region, or a user overprovisioning region), and
the plurality of planes comprising a first plane (Paragraph 49, multiple planes).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on a memory block in the user area of the first plane being detected as a bad block, perform a subsequent operation based on whether a number of bad blocks of the first plane is greater than a maximum number of bad blocks and a use ratio of the user area of the first plane, wherein the use ratio is less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and wherein the subsequent operation comprises: decreasing a capacity of the user area of the first plane by setting at least one user memory block in the user area as an unused block without transitioning to a read only mode and with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is based on the use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to the reference use ratio; and setting the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio.
However, Nam teaches wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on a memory block in the user area of the first plane being detected as a bad block (Paragraphs 60, 64; step S210, a memory controller detects and counts a number of bad blocks),
perform a subsequent operation based on whether a number of bad blocks of the first plane is greater than a maximum number of bad blocks (Paragraphs 61, 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum), and
wherein the subsequent operation comprises decreasing a capacity of the user area of the first plane (Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, step S270, the storage device is ran at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half its normal capacity)).
by setting at least one user memory block in the user area as an unused block (Paragraphs 18, 49; Fig. 1, memory blocks in user space 124 that are set in abnormal mode are unwritable [unusable])
without transitioning to a read only mode (Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, steps S220, S270, running the storage at an abnormal capacity, where the storage device reads, writes, and deletes at a smaller than normal capacity).
Lee and Nam are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee to further include the exceedable bad block maximum and the decreasable user area according to the teachings of Nam. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve device lifespan and save costs by utilizing a part of the storage capacity even if the number of bad blocks exceeds a maximum (Nam, Paragraph 81).
Lee in view of Nam does not explicitly to perform a subsequent operation based on a use ratio of the user area of the first plane is less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and decreasing a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio.
However, Rawal teaches to perform a subsequent operation based on a use ratio of the user area of the first plane is less than or equal to a reference use ratio (Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity),
decreasing a capacity of the user area based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio (Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity), and
set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio (Paragraphs 64-65, 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to a read access pattern [use ratio] of a reader application meeting the upper storage utilization threshold, providing/connecting storage units for read-only access).
Lee, Nam, and Rawal are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam to further include the decreasing capacity of the user area based on a reference use ratio according to the teachings of Rawal. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve storage hardware utilization (Rawal, Paragraph 105).
Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal does not explicitly teach decreasing a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is.
However, Perry teaches decreasing a capacity of the user area with maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area as it is (Paragraphs 39, 42; Fig. 4, disconnecting/decreasing operative [user] block 406 from operative blocks 302 in order to maintain a minimum level 322 [maintaining an OP capacity of the OP area] of spare [OP] blocks 304).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, and Perry are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal to further include the decreasing of a user area while maintaining an OP capacity according to the teachings of Perry. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve storage operations by ensuring the storage device has adequate space for write operations while minimizing interruptions (Perry, Paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 19, this is an apparatus version of the claimed storage device discussed above (claim 1, respectively), in which Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry also teach an electronic apparatus comprising: a host device configured to generate a write request or a read request for data (Lee, Paragraphs 44-47; Fig. 1, host 102 sends a read request or a write request for data); and
a storage device configured to perform an operation corresponding to the write request or the read request (Lee, Paragraphs 44-48; Fig. 1, FTL 40 of memory device 150 receives, processes, and translate a read/write request from host 102).
The remaining claim limitations have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry as applied to claims 1, 8, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of Heo et al. (US 20100082890 A1), hereinafter Heo.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry teaches the storage device of claim 1, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to the reference use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity) and
the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum),
decrease the capacity of the user area (Nam, Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, step S270, the storage device is run at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half its normal capacity)).
Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry does not explicitly teach based on a currently decreased capacity of the user area and a maximum decreasable capacity of the user area.
However, Heo teaches based on a currently decreased capacity of the user area and a maximum decreasable capacity of the user area (Paragraph 394, converting user blocks to replace bad blocks [decreasing capacity] based on the current amount of user blocks [currently decreased capacity] being above a minimum threshold value of user blocks [maximum decreasable capacity]).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, Perry, and Heo are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry to further include the currently decreased capacity and the maximum decreasable capacity according to the teachings of Heo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of the memory device (Heo, Paragraph 391).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 2, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: based on the currently decreased capacity of the user area being less than the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area, decrease the capacity of the user area (Heo, Paragraph 394, if the current amount of user blocks [currently decreased capacity] is higher than the minimum threshold value (falls short of a maximum decreasable capacity), convert a user block to replace a bad block, decreasing user capacity),
and based on the currently decreased capacity of the user area being same as the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area, set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode (Heo, Paragraph 394, if the current amount of user blocks is less than the minimum threshold value (has reached/exceeded a maximum decreasable capacity), set the bad block [memory] to a read only mode).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry teaches the storage device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks, transmit a replacement notification to a host device.
However, Heo teaches wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks, transmit a replacement notification to a host device (Paragraphs 119-121, 128, 137; Figs. 1, 5, 6, step S110, if the number of bad blocks is greater than a threshold b5 [maximum number of bad blocks], sending bad status information [notification] to a host 110, indicating memory replacement).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, Perry, and Heo are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry to further include the replacement notification according to the teachings of Heo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by indicating whether to perform memory replacement at an appropriate time (Heo, Paragraph 137).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 6, wherein the replacement notification comprises a target fail response value, a condition check status value (Heo, Paragraph 128; Fig. 6, step S110, status information includes checking various parameters [condition check status values]), and a replacement sense key value.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 8, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks being greater than a reference ratio of the maximum number of bad blocks and the number of bad blocks being less than or equal to the maximum number of bad blocks, transmit a caution notification to a host device (Heo, Paragraphs 119-121, 128; Figs. 1, 5, 6, step S110, if the number of bad blocks is greater than a threshold b3 [reference ratio] and less than a threshold b5 [maximum number of bad blocks], sending warning status information [caution notification] to host 110).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 9, wherein the caution notification comprises a target fail response value, a condition check status value (Heo, Paragraph 128; Fig. 6, step S110, status information includes checking various parameters [condition check status values]), and a caution sense key value.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry teaches the storage device of claim 11, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks of the first plane being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum) and
the use ratio of the user area of the first plane being less than or equal to the reference use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity),
decrease the capacity of the user area of the first plane as the subsequent operation (Nam, Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, step S270, the storage device is ran at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half its normal capacity)).
Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal and Perry does not explicitly teach based on a currently decreased capacity of the user area of the first plane and a maximum decreasable capacity of the user area.
However, Heo teaches based on a currently decreased capacity of the user area of the first plane and a maximum decreasable capacity of the user area (Paragraph 394, converting user blocks to replace bad blocks [decreasing capacity] based on the current amount of user blocks [currently decreased capacity] being above a minimum threshold value of user blocks [maximum decreasable capacity]).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, Perry, and Heo are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal to further include the currently decreased capacity and the maximum decreasable capacity according to the teachings of Heo. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the reliability of the memory device (Heo, Paragraph 391).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 12, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: based on the currently decreased capacity of the user area of the first plane being less than the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area, decrease the capacity of the user area of the first plane as the subsequent operation (Heo, Paragraph 394, if the current amount of user blocks [currently decreased capacity] is higher than the minimum threshold value (falls short of a maximum decreasable capacity), convert a user block to replace a bad block, decreasing user capacity), and
based on the currently decreased capacity of the user area of the first plane being same as the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area, set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode as the subsequent operation (Heo, Paragraph 394, if the current amount of user blocks is less than the minimum threshold value (has reached/exceeded a maximum decreasable capacity), set the bad block [memory] to a read only mode).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 11, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks of the first plane being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks, perform the subsequent operation (Nam, Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, steps S220, S270, if the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum, the storage is ran at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half of its normal capacity)) and then
transmit, to a host device, a replacement notification (Heo, Paragraphs 119-121, 128, 137; Figs. 1, 5, 6, step S110, if the number of bad blocks is greater than a threshold b5 [maximum number of bad blocks], sending bad status information [notification] to a host 110, indicating memory replacement), and
wherein the replacement notification comprises a target fail response value, a condition check status value (Heo, Paragraph 128; Fig. 6, step S110, status information includes checking various parameters [condition check status values]), and a replacement sense key value.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 19, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: based on a currently decreased capacity of the user area being less than a maximum decreasable capacity of the user area (Heo, Paragraph 394, determining if the current amount of user blocks [currently decreased capacity] is higher than the minimum threshold value (falls short of a maximum decreasable capacity)),
the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum) and
the use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to the reference use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, in response to an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio], decreasing total available storage capacity),
decrease the capacity of the user area (Nam, Paragraphs 62, 64; Fig. 5, step S270, the storage device is ran at an abnormal capacity (decreased to half its normal capacity)),
based on the currently decreased capacity of the user area being same as the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area (Heo, Paragraph 394, determining if the current amount of user blocks is less than the minimum threshold value (has reached/exceeded a maximum decreasable capacity)),
the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum) and
the use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to the reference use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, determining an access pattern [use ratio] to a storage container (including a user area) being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold [reference use ratio]),
set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode (Heo, Paragraph 394, set the bad block [memory] to a read only mode in response to the current amount of user blocks being less than a minimum threshold), and
based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, determining that the access pattern [use ratio] meets an upper storage utilization threshold (greater than a lower storage utilization threshold)) and
the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum),
set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode (Nam, Paragraphs 63-64; Fig. 5, steps S220-S250, the storage device is set to a read-only mode based on the existence of stored user data [use ratio] and whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum).
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 19, wherein the storage controller is further configured to, based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraphs 61, 64; Fig. 5; step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum),
maintain the OP capacity of the OP area as it is (Lee, Paragraphs 36, 38, 71; Figs. 1 and 5C, utilizing reserved redundancy blocks to replace bad blocks within user overprovisioning blocks).
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 19, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: transmit a ready response (Heo, Paragraph 245; Fig. 22, ready control signal [response] of nonvolatile memory 2240)
to the host device, based on the write request being received from the host device (Lee, Paragraphs 44 and 47; Fig. 1, memory device 150 may generate a control signal to interface transmitted write request data from host 102),
receive write data corresponding to the write request from the host device (Lee, Paragraph 47, receiving write request data from the host), and
transmit, to the host device, the replacement notification based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks and a memory block in the user area being the bad block (Heo, Paragraphs 119-121, 128, 137; Figs. 1, 5, 6, step S110, in response to detecting that number of bad blocks is greater than a threshold b5 [maximum number of bad blocks], sending bad status information [notification] to a host 110, indicating memory replacement)
during a write operation corresponding to the write request (Lee, Paragraph 77; Fig. 7, step S706, detecting bad memory blocks as blocks which have failed during a write operation), and
wherein the replacement notification comprises a target fail response value, a condition check status value (Heo, Paragraph 128; Fig. 6, step S110, status information includes checking various parameters [condition check status values]), and a replacement sense key value.
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the electronic apparatus of claim 19, wherein the storage controller is further configured to: transmit, to the host device, a caution notification based on the number of bad blocks being less than or equal to the maximum number of bad blocks, the number of bad blocks being greater than a reference ratio of the maximum number of bad blocks (Heo, Paragraphs 119-121, 128; Figs. 1, 5, 6, step S110, if the number of bad blocks is greater than a threshold b3 [reference ratio] and less than a threshold b5 [maximum number of bad blocks], sending warning status information [caution notification] to host 110), and
the memory block in the user area being the bad block during a write operation corresponding to the write request (Lee, Paragraphs 38, 77; Fig. 7, step S706, detecting bad memory blocks in the user region as blocks which have failed during a write operation), and
wherein the caution notification comprises a target fail response value, a condition check status value (Heo, Paragraph 128; Fig. 6, step S110, status information includes checking various parameters [condition check status values]), and a caution sense key value.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 20060250720 A1), hereinafter Hsu.
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo teaches the storage device of claim 3 and the use ratios of the user area (Nam, Paragraphs 63-64; Fig. 5, steps S230-S240, S270, running the storage device at abnormal [decreased] capacity based on whether there is no stored user data in the user space).
Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo does not explicitly teach wherein the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area is set based on a maximum decreasing capacity reference table indicating decreasable capacities.
However, Hsu teaches wherein the maximum decreasable capacity of the user area is set based on a maximum decreasing capacity reference table indicating decreasable capacities (Paragraph 21; Fig. 2, lookup table 411 lists configuration modes of decreasable sizes [capacities] of the data storing zone 401 [user area]).
Lee, Nam, Rawal, Perry, Heo, and Hsu are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, that being storage block management. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the storage device of Lee in view of Nam, further in view of Rawal, Perry, and Heo to further include the maximum decreasing capacity reference table according to the teachings of Hsu. The motivation for doing so would have been to prolong the service life of the memory device while dynamically managing memory zone sizes as needed (Hsu, Paragraphs 8-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 10-13 of the remarks) filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a proactive capacity management system that proactively marks blocks as “unused”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that neither Nam nor Rawal fails to disclose at least “based on the number of bad blocks being greater than the maximum number of bad blocks: decrease a capacity of the user area by setting at least one user memory block in the user area as an unused block without transitioning to a read only mode … based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference use ratio, and set the non-volatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio”. Although Nam does not explicitly teach decreasing a capacity based on a use ratio or setting the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio, Nam does teach in response to a number of bad blocks being greater than a maximum number of bad blocks (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, step S220, determining whether the number of bad blocks exceeds the maximum), decreasing a capacity of the user area by marking blocks as “unused” (Nam, Paragraphs 18, 62, 64; Fig. 5, steps S220, S270, running storage at an abnormal capacity, wherein data blocks in the abnormal capacity area are not used for storage [unused]), without transitioning to a read only mode (Nam, Paragraph 64; Fig. 5, steps S250, S270, running abnormal capacity without operating in a read-only mode). Rawal builds upon this concept by decreasing a capacity based on a use ratio (Rawal, Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, decreasing available storage capacity based on a storage utilization access pattern [use ratio]), and setting the memory to a read-only mode based on the use ratio (Rawal, Paragraphs 64-65, 101; Fig. 4, block 406, providing read-only access storage based on an application’s read access pattern [use ratio]). Thus, Nam and Rawal teach the contested limitations as stated above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that Rawal is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the limitation “decrease a capacity of the user area … based on a use ratio of the user area being less than or equal to a reference ratio, and set the nonvolatile memory to the read only mode based on the use ratio of the user area being greater than the reference use ratio” is concerned with the particular problem of adapting the utilization of storage based on the use ratio of the particular storage. Rawal remedies this by decreasing a capacity of the storage based on a use ratio being less than or equal to a threshold (Paragraph 101; Fig. 4, block 406, decreasing available storage capacity based on a storage utilization access pattern [use ratio] being equal to a lower storage utilization threshold), and setting memory to read-only mode based on the use ratio being greater than a threshold (Paragraphs 64-65, 101; Fig. 4, block 406, providing read-only access storage to an application based on the access pattern [use ratio] meeting an upper storage utilization threshold). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art to have applied the solution of Rawal to the storage device of Nam managing bad blocks.
Thus, the Examiner maintains the rejection in view of Lee, Nam, and Rawal, and further notes any other arguments in regards to the combination of Nam and Rawal in claims 1, 11, and 19 are consummate in scope with the arguments above.
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 12-14 of the remarks) filed 2/9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C 103 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 Lee, Nam, Rawal, and Perry.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jason Pinga whose telephone number is (571) 272-2620. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-6pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arpan Savla, can be reached on (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.
/J.M.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2137
/TRACY A WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights