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 1/20/26 in response to the Office action dated 12/23/25. Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 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, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj (US 20220019370 A1) in view of Bennett et al. (US 20210334201 A1), hereinafter Bennett.
Regarding claim 1, Bhardwaj teaches a system comprising: a memory device (Paragraph 21; Fig. 1, non-volatile memory device 130 of memory sub-system 110); and
a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device (Paragraph 32; Fig. 1, memory sub-system controller 115 which controls operations of memory sub-system 110 includes processor 117), to perform operations comprising:
receiving data from a host system (Paragraph 51; Figs 1 and 3, step 305, receiving write data from host system 120);
in response to receiving the data, initiating a write operation to write the data to a set of cache blocks of the memory device, the set of cache blocks comprising a first cache block and a second cache block (Paragraphs 51, 56; Figs. 2 and 3, steps 305, 320, in response to receiving write data, performing a write operation to store the data at non-zoned memory region 208 comprising blocks [including a first and second cache block]);
determining whether the first cache block is fully written (Paragraphs 59-60; Fig. 3, step 325, determining that the amount of data stored in non-zoned memory has reached a threshold condition, such as the amount of data being enough to close a block),
a second cache block (Paragraph 60, data stored in non-zoned memory can occupy two full blocks of memory (including a second block)); and
in response to determining that the first cache block is fully written and that the amount of data written to the second cache block is greater than or equal to the threshold amount of data, causing the data written to the set of cache blocks to be written to the target block (Paragraph 63; Figs. 2 and 3, step 330, upon determining that the amount of data reaches the aforementioned threshold condition, migrating data from the non-zoned memory blocks 208 [including cache blocks] to zoned memory blocks 206 [including a target block]).
Bhardwaj does not explicitly teach determining whether an amount of data written to the cache is greater than or equal to a threshold amount of data defined by a threshold number of wordlines of a target block of the memory device.
However, Bennett teaches determining whether an amount of data written to the cache is greater than or equal to a threshold amount of data defined by a threshold number of wordlines of a target block of the memory device (Paragraphs 45, 60-62; Figs. 1 and 4A, determining whether unwritten data stored in volatile memory 112 meets a minimum write size requirement [threshold amount of data] in order to be written to a storage unit 110, wherein the minimum write size corresponds to one (or any other selected number of) wordline(s) in each erase [target] block 404 of the storage unit 110).
Bhardwaj and Bennett 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 system of Bhardwaj to further include the threshold amount of data being defined by a threshold number of wordlines of a target block according to the teachings of Bennett. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the write process and increase programming efficiency (Bennett, Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 3, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first cache block comprises cells having a first type (Bhardwaj, Paragraphs 47, 56; Fig. 2, purposed blocks 212 of non-zoned memory region 208 [including the first cache block] are configured as single-level cells (SLC) [first type]), and
wherein the target block comprises cells having a second type different from the first type (Bhardwaj, Paragraph 47; Fig. 2, zoned namespace 206 blocks [including the target block] are configured as quad-level cells (QLC) [second type]).
Regarding claim 4, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the cells having the first type are single-level cells (SLC) cells (Bhardwaj, Paragraphs 47, 56; Fig. 2, purposed blocks 212 of non-zoned memory region 208 [including the first cache block] are configured as single-level cells (SLC)), and
the cells having the second type are quad-level cells (QLC) cells (Bhardwaj, Paragraph 47; Fig. 2, zoned namespace 206 blocks [including the target block] are configured as quad-level cells (QLC)).
Regarding claim 8, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett.
Regarding claim 10, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett.
Regarding claim 11, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 4, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett.
Regarding claim 15, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein Bhardwaj in view of Bennett also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Bhardwaj, Paragraph 83, machine-readable medium having instructions). The remaining claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett.
Regarding claim 17, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 3, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Nagahara (US 20220308789 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett teaches the system of claim 1 and migrating the data written to the set of cache blocks to the target block (Bhardwaj, Paragraph 63; Figs. 2 and 3, step 330, migrating data from the non-zoned memory blocks 208 [including cache blocks] to zoned memory blocks 206 [including a target block]).
Bhardwaj in view of Bennett does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise, after migrating the data, updating a logical-to-physical (L2P) mapping table; and initiating an erase operation to erase the first cache block.
However, Nagahara teaches wherein the operations further comprise, after migrating the data, updating a logical-to-physical (L2P) mapping table (Paragraph 121; Figs. 1 and 12, after moving data from one block 148 to another, updating L2P table 31); and
initiating an erase operation to erase the first cache block (Paragraph 121; Fig. 12, after migrating data from a block 148, physically erasing data from block 148).
Bhardwaj, Bennett, and Nagahara 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 system of Bhardwaj in view of Bennett to further include the updating and erasing after migration according to the teachings of Nagahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase the amount of free memory space (Nagahara, Paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 9, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 2, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Nagahara.
Regarding claim 16, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 2, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Nagahara.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20220147252 A1), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 5, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett teaches the system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: detecting an interrupt event with respect to data being written to the target block; determining whether to continue writing to the target block after the interrupt event; and in response to determining to continue writing to the target block after the interrupt event, causing the write operation to continue.
However, Liu teaches wherein the operations further comprise: detecting an interrupt event with respect to data being written to the target block (Paragraphs 46, 56, 58-59; Fig. 3, steps 332-333, in response to detecting a power-up event following a power-off [interrupt] event, selecting an open [target] block which is a block that is in the process of having data being programmed);
determining whether to continue writing to the target block after the interrupt event (Paragraphs 56, 60-64; Fig. 3, steps 334-336, determining whether to include or preclude the open block from programming [continue or discontinue write operations] after the power-off [interrupt] event); and
in response to determining to continue writing to the target block after the interrupt event, causing the write operation to continue (Paragraphs 60-64; Fig. 3, steps 334-336, in response to determining that the open [target] block’s age is less than or equal to a health threshold, refraining from precluding the open block from programming [continuing write operations]).
Bhardwaj, Bennett, and Liu 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 system of Bhardwaj in view of Bennett to further include the interrupt event and the continuation/discontinuation of writing in response according to the teachings of Liu. The motivation for doing so would have been to mitigate errors associated with open blocks after a power-off event (Liu, Paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 6, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the interrupt event comprises a power loss event (Liu, Paragraph 56, performing open block management after a power-off event).
Regarding claim 7, Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu teaches the system of claim 5, wherein determining whether to continue writing to the target block after the interrupt event comprises determining whether a length of time that the target block has remained open satisfies a threshold condition (Liu, Paragraphs 60-64; Fig. 3, steps 334-336, in response to determining that the open [target] block’s age [length of time the target block has remained open] is less than a health threshold, refraining from precluding the open block from programming [continue writing]).
Regarding claim 12, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 13, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 6, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 14, this is a method version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 18, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 5, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 19, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 6, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium version of the claimed system discussed above (claim 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in the cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious over Bhardwaj in view of Bennett, further in view of Liu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 8-11 of the remarks) filed 1/20/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (see pages 11-12 of the remarks) filed 1/20/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, under further consideration, a new ground of rejection(s) is made in view of Bhardwaj and Bennett.
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
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137