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 Arguments
With regard to the double patenting rejection, applicant indicated that a terminal disclaimer was attached to the response filed February 13, 2026. However, there is no terminal disclaimer is in the electronic file wrapper. Clarification is requested. Due to the fact that there is no terminal disclaimer is in the file wrapper or a proper response to the rejection, the obvious-type double patenting rejection as set forth in the previous office action is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takafuji et al., US 2014/0160842 [hereinafter, Takafuji] in view of Solomon, US 2011/0199805 [hereinafter, Solomon]
As per claim 1:
Takafuji teaches a system and a method thereof [see figures 1 and10], comprising: enabling a reconfiguration of a memory device responsive to the memory device being fit for a secondary configuration [see para. 0062, and 0066-0074; various factors that may cause the memory device unfit for the original specification such as MLC memory device, as a result the host enable the memory device to reconfigured as SLC memory device]; and reconfiguring the memory device responsive to enabling the reconfiguration [see again para. 0062; "...where testing shows that am MLC memory does not meet a certain set of metrics; the MLC memory may be reconfigured as an SLC memory "].
Takafuji, however, does not explicitly disclose a reuse mode on the memory device and that the reconfiguration of the memory device is a response to the enabling of the reuse mode.
Salomon teaches a reprogrammable mode in which memory arrays are reconfigured to suit a different application [see para. 0025]. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that selecting a suitable application for the reconfigured memory device is no more than a matter of selecting a field of “field of use”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as made to configure the Takafuji memory controller to enable a reuse mode (i.e., reprogrammable mode) and reconfiguring the memory device responsive to the enabling of the reuse mode, as taught by Solomon.
As for claims 2, 9 and 15:
The further claimed limitation of "determining whether the memory device is fit for the secondary application based on health information for the memory device" is also suggested by Takafuji [see again para. 0068-74; temperature, ECC, read count, etc. are the health measures of the memory].
As for claims 4, 12 and 16:
The further claimed limitations of "determining that the memory device is fit for the secondary application based on a reuse grade for the memory device, one or more reuse conditions for the memory device, or any combination thereof" is also suggested by Takafuji [see para. 0072; "...some combination of time, hot count, and temperature may trigger a reconfiguration"].
As for claims 7, 13 and 18-20:
The further claimed limitation of “receiving a command to enable the reuse mode” would follow necessarily when the teaching of Solomon is incorporated into that of the Takafuji in the manner mentioned above. This is because the reprogrammable mode would have been instructed by a host or a processing unit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takafuji in view of Solomon and further in view of Albert et al., US 2018/0293129 [hereinafter, Albert].
The combination of Takafuji and Solomon discloses a system and a method thereof as mentioned above.
The combination, however, does not explicitly disclose the step of accessing the health
information stored on the memory device.
It has been known and commonly practiced in the art that the health information such as
ECC or erase count (i.e., hot count) are stored in the same memory device that stores the
associated user data. Albert is one of the many prior art reference that discloses storing the
ECC in the same memory device as that of the associated data blocks of the memory device
[see the abstract].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior the effective filing
date of the claimed invention, to configure that Takafuji-Solomon system to store the health information regarding the memory blocks of the memory device in the same memory device and further reading the health data from the memory in determining the health of the associated memory blocks, as taught by Albert. It would have been obvious simply because it is no more than a commonly practiced operation.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takafuji
in view of Solomon and further in view of Astigarraga et al., US patent no. 7,356,442 [hereinafter, Astigarraga].
As for claims 5 and 17:
The combination of Takafuji and Solomon discloses a system and a method thereof, as mentioned above. Takafuji further teaches the memory device can be reconfigured more than one during the lifecycle of the memory device [see again para. 0062].
The combination, however, does not disclose the step of "determining that the memory device is unfit for the secondary application.
Astigarraga teaches a similar system that has an end-of life prediction module to
determine a status of the flash memory ([i.e., to see whether the memory device can be used in
any application) [see col. 5, lines 11-28].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the Takafuji-Solomon system to determine the end-of-life of the Takafuji memory device, as taught by Astigarraga, in order to determine whether the memory device can be fit for use in any application. The end-of-life determination capability would be the motivation for doing so in the Takafuji system.
As per claim 6:
The further claimed limitation of "generating a report responsive to the memory device
being unfit for the secondary application" would follow necessarily when the teaching of
Astigarraga is incorporated in that of the Takafuji-Solomon in the above-mentioned manner. This is because the system must have generated a signal to indicate when the memory device reached the end-of-life.
Claim(s) 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takafuji in view of Solomon and further in view Bauer et al., US patent no. 5,822, 256 [hereinafter, Bauer].
The combination of Takafuji and Solomon discloses a system and a method thereof, as mentioned above.
The combination, however, does disclose the that "wherein reconfiguring the memory device comprises storing reuse mode information on the memory device, the reuse mode information indicating that the memory device is operating in the reuse mode.
It has been known and commonly practiced in the art to have a mode register for storing
information indicating whether the memory device is configured as MLC or SLC memory device.
Bauer is one of the many prior art references that disclose such mode register [see Bauer, col. 12, lines 32-43].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a mode register in the Takafuji-Solomon system for storing mode information indicating whether the memory device is operated in SLC or MLC mode, as taught by Bauer. It would have been obvious simply because it is no more than a commonly practiced feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson et al., US 2022/0334749, teaches purging memory of devices thus allowing memory-containing devices to be repurposed for another application [see para. 0021].
Lu et al., US 9,483,416, teaches a memory can be repurposed and used for other applications [see col. 7, lines 11-27].
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 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.
/HIEP T NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights