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 .
The Examiner acknowledges the applicant's submission of the amendment dated 5/4/26, which has been entered.
1. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciocchini (US 20240071522).
With respect to claim 1, the Ciocchini reference teaches a data refresh method applicable to a data storage device comprising a non-volatile flash memory and a controller, wherein the non-volatile flash memory comprises a plurality of data blocks, (see fig. 1, memory device 140/130 and controller 115; and paragraphs 25-26 and 51-52) and the data refresh method is performed by the controller which comprises:
receiving a data reading instruction from a host; (paragraph 38, where data integrity manager 113 uses the logical address or translated physical address from a read command to determine which wordline group is targeted by the read command. Data integrity manager 113 uses lookup table 210 to find the slope factor for the corresponding wordline group)
determining whether a data block is read for a first time within a cycle, wherein the data block is searched for based on the data reading instruction; (see fig. 3; and paragraph 39, where FIG. 3 includes read window budget graph 305, representing initial RWB intercept and slope values for different wordline groups determined at a first point in time, read window budget graph 320, representing the same wordline groups with values determined at a second point in time, and an intercept adjusted lookup table 310 [The Examiner notes the time between first and second point in time is analogous to the ‘cycle’ as claimed]; and paragraph 38, where data integrity manager 113 uses the logical address or translated physical address from a read command to determine which wordline group is targeted by the read command)
in response to that the data block is read for the first time within the cycle, adding a first value to a read count of the data block; (paragraph 32, where the data integrity manager 113 can adjust a read counter increment amount based on a read disturb stress slope factor for a specific wordline or wordline group [including the ‘first time’])
determining whether the read count increased is greater than a refresh threshold; (paragraph 52, where the processing device executes a read disturb scan. For example, the data integrity manager 113 scans the block (or other unit of read counter granularity) to determine whether the data stored in the block satisfies a refresh threshold) and
in response to that the read count increased is greater than the refresh threshold, performing a refresh operation on the data block. (paragraph 53, where the data integrity manager 113 uses the results of the read disturb scan from operation 435 to determine whether the number of errors detected in the data integrity scan satisfies a refresh threshold. If the number of errors detected satisfies the refresh threshold, the data integrity manager 113 uses an error correction scheme to rewrite the data (e.g., to a different block))
With respect to claim 2, the Ciocchini reference teaches the data refresh method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to that the data block is not read for the first time within the cycle, adding a second value to the read count of the data block, wherein the second value is less than the first value. (paragraph 32, where the data integrity manager 113 can adjust a read counter increment amount based on a read disturb stress slope factor for a specific wordline or wordline group [which would be different for the ‘second time’ and could be less than the first value])
With respect to claim 3, the Ciocchini reference teaches the data refresh method according to claim 2, wherein the second value is 1. (paragraph 32, where the data integrity manager 113 can adjust a read counter increment amount based on a read disturb stress slope factor for a specific wordline or wordline group [which could be any number including ‘1’])
With respect to claim 4, the Ciocchini reference teaches the data refresh method according to claim 1, wherein the cycle is at least 120 seconds. (paragraph 33, where as shown in read window budget slope graph 205, RWB slopes are measured in millivolts (mV) per decade or similar metrics. In some embodiments, a decade is measured as a number of block cycles, such as 10,000 block program/erase cycles. In other embodiments, a decade may be measured as an amount of elapsed time or another metric [i.e. could be any time or metric])
With respect to claim 5, the Ciocchini reference teaches the data refresh method according to claim 1, wherein the first value is at least 120. (paragraph 32, where the data integrity manager 113 can adjust a read counter increment amount based on a read disturb stress slope factor for a specific wordline or wordline group [which could be any number including ‘120’])
With respect to claim 6, the Ciocchini reference teaches the data refresh method according to claim 1, wherein the refresh threshold is at least 50,000. (paragraph 51, where the threshold may be changed depending on the tasks of the overall system, the environment for the overall system, and other factors. In some embodiments, each of the blocks (or other unit of read counter granularity) has a different threshold based on characteristics of that block [which could be any number including ’50,000’])
Claims 7-12 are the data storage device implementation of claims 1-6, and rejected under the same rationale as shown above. The Examiner notes the limitations of “a non-volatile flash memory comprising a plurality of data blocks; and a controller coupled to the non-volatile flash memory and configured to perform a data refresh method” noted above are taught by fig. 1, memory device 140/130 and controller 115; and paragraphs 25-26 and 51-52)
Claims 13-18 are the non-transitory data storage medium implementation of claims 1-6, and rejected under the same rationale as shown above.
2. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING NON-PRIOR ART REJECTIONS/OBJECTIONS
Claim Objections – Minor Informalities
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 13 have been considered and have overcome the Examiner’s prior rejections and thus are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – USC 101
Applicant's arguments and amendments with respect to claims 13-18 have been considered and have overcome the Examiner’s prior rejections and thus are withdrawn.
3. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered, and are not persuasive. The Applicant argues (see pages 6-7 of the remarks) the limitations of "determining whether a data block is read for a first time within a cycle" and "in response to that the data block is read for the first time within the cycle, adding a first value to a read count of the data block" are not taught by the prior art. The Ciocchini reference teaches (see fig. 3; and paragraph 39) a read window budget graph 305, representing initial RWB intercept and slope values for different wordline groups determined at a first point in time, read window budget graph 320, representing the same wordline groups with values determined at a second point in time, and an intercept adjusted lookup table 310. The Ciocchini reference further teaches (paragraph 32) where the data integrity manager 113 can adjust a read counter increment amount based on a read disturb stress slope factor for a specific wordline or wordline group. Thus, based on the citations above, the Ciocchini reference teaches a time between first and second point in time [analogous to the ‘cycle’ as claimed], and further incrementing a read counter which could include a ‘first time within a cycle’. The Examiner further notes the claim does not clearly define what is required by a ‘cycle’, and could be analogous to any first point in time to a second point in time as discussed above. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner has maintained the rejections above. Any arguments not specifically addressed can refer to the response above.
4. CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
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 PRASITH THAMMAVONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-8 PM EST.
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 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.
/PRASITH THAMMAVONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights