DETAILED ACTION
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 and examined.
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, 6-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,340,980 to Liu et al. (hereafter Liu).
Regarding independent claim 1, Liu teaches a system comprising:
a memory device (FIG. 1A: memory 116);
a processing device (FIG. 1A: device controller 112), operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising:
detecting that a read disturb scan has been triggered for a partial block of the memory device (see 8:57-62), wherein the partial block comprises one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed and one or more wordlines that have associated memory cells that are empty (see FIG. 3);
initiating one or more programmed wordline scans of the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed (see FIG. 6 and 14:1-15:29);
see FIG. 5 and 12:52-13:67); and
responsive to the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are empty failing the one or more unprogrammed wordline scans, marking the partial block as closed to prevent additional programming of the partial block (see FIG. 4 and 13:39-47).
Liu does not teach the strikethrough limitations. However, Liu suggests that memory cells in erased state of unprogrammed wordlines are more susceptible to read disturbance than memory cells in other states of programmed wordlines (see 11:40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the programmed wordline scans and unprogrammed wordline scans of the Lee reference into a single process. Such a combination would occur after one of the scans satisfies a predetermined condition to thoroughly manage block data integrity.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, Liu does not explicitly teach either (1) scanning a first wordline adjacent to a wordline being read, (2) scanning a first wordline that has been randomly-selected from the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed, and (3) scanning a first wordline that has been randomly-selected from the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are empty. However, Liu suggests, in a block, each read operation on a wordline has different read disturbance effects on all other wordlines because they resist different stresses. The block may include one or more weak wordlines (see 15:52-62).
It would have been obvious to realize that Liu could obviously select any of the (1), (2) and (3) for scanning, since each is susceptible to read disturbance.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Liu teaches wherein the processing device is configured to perform operations further comprising: responsive to the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are empty passing the one or more unprogrammed wordline scans, determining that the partial block passes the read disturb scan (FIGS. 4-5: NO result from step 404).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Liu teaches wherein the read disturb scan is triggered in response to a threshold number of read operations being performed on the memory device since a previous read disturb scan was performed (see 12:11-26).
Regarding independent claim 8, Liu teaches a method comprising:
detecting that a read disturb scan has been triggered for a partial block of a memory device (see 8:57-62), wherein the partial block comprises one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed and one or more wordlines that have associated memory cells that are empty (see FIG. 3);
initiating one or more programmed wordline scans of the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed (see FIG. 6 and 14:1-15:29);
see FIG. 5 and 12:52-13:67); and
responsive to the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are empty failing the one or more unprogrammed wordline scans, marking the partial block as closed to prevent additional programming of the partial block (see FIG. 4 and 13:39-47).
Liu does not teach the strikethrough limitations. However, Liu suggests that memory cells in erased state of unprogrammed wordlines are more susceptible to read disturbance than memory cells in other states of programmed wordlines (see 11:40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the programmed wordline scans and unprogrammed wordline scans of the Lee reference into a single process. Such a combination would occur after one of the scans satisfies a predetermined condition to thoroughly manage block data integrity.
Regarding dependent claims 9-11, 13-14, see rejection applied to claims 2-4, 6-7 above.
Regarding independent claim 15, Liu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (FIG. 1A: device 110) that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
detecting that a read disturb scan has been triggered for a partial block of a memory device (see 8:57-62), wherein the partial block comprises one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed and one or more wordlines that have associated memory cells that are empty (see FIG. 3);
initiating one or more programmed wordline scans of the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed (see FIG. 6 and 14:1-15:29);
see FIG. 5 and 12:52-13:67); and
responsive to the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are empty failing the one or more unprogrammed wordline scans, marking the partial block as closed to prevent additional programming of the partial block (see FIG. 4 and 13:39-47).
Liu does not teach the strikethrough limitations. However, Liu suggests that memory cells in erased state of unprogrammed wordlines are more susceptible to read disturbance than memory cells in other states of programmed wordlines (see 11:40-44).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the programmed wordline scans and unprogrammed wordline scans of the Lee reference into a single process. Such a combination would occur after one of the scans satisfies a predetermined condition to thoroughly manage block data integrity.
Regarding dependent claims 16-18, 20, see rejection applied to claims 2-4, 6-7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of US 11,862,260 to Guo et al. (hereafter Guo).
Liu teaches, as applied in prior rejection of claim 1, all claimed subject matter except further limitations set forth in the following claim(s).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Guo teaches a processing device is configured to perform operations further comprising: responsive to the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that are programmed failing the one or more programmed wordline scans, copying data from the one or more wordlines having associated memory cells that have been programmed to a different block of the memory device and refreshing the partial block (FIG. 7: steps 708 and 710, also see 22:53-62).
Since Liu and Guo are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Liu would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Guo.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to copy data from one block to another when the block's BER exceeds a predetermined threshold in order to preserve data integrity.
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 19, see rejection applied to claim 5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANTHU NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1881. 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, Richard Elms can be reached at (571) 272-1869. 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.
July 15, 2026
/VANTHU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights