DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/038524, filed 01/27/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation “recall at least one memory block among the first subset of memory blocks from the first zone” (e.g. claim 6, lines 7-8) is not adequately defined by the specification to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention, as follows:
Claim 2, language “open memory blocks having a first wear level as the second zone, wherein the memory blocks are less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when a write count of the first zone is greater than a read count of the first zone; open memory blocks having a second wear level as the second zone, wherein the memory blocks are more deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when a read count of the first zone is greater than a write count of the first zone” (lines 3-10). This limitation is indefinite, for 3 reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the memory blocks”, as there is antecedent basis for “a plurality of memory blocks” (claim 1, line 2), as well as two separate instances of “memory blocks” (claim 2, lines 3 and 7); accordingly, it is unclear which one is “the memory blocks”. Second, the two instances of “the memory blocks” appear to have conflicting characteristics, as they appear to simultaneously have a first wear level and a second wear level, and to be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than the predetermined memory block. Third, it is ambiguous whether the conditional language “when a [write/read] count of the first zone is greater than a [read/write] count of the first zone” is meant to refer to “open memory blocks”, or “wherein the memory blocks are [less/more] deteriorated”, or whether it is a joint condition of the two. As Examiner is unable to determine the intended meaning, the limitation is indefinite;
Claim 3, language “open memory blocks to the host as the second zone, when a write count of the first zone is greater than a read count of the first zone, wherein the memory blocks include a triple-level cell (TLC) or a quadruple-level cell (QLC), and wherein the memory blocks including the TLC or QLC have a first wear level that are less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block of the plurality of memory blocks; and open memory blocks to the host as the second zone, when the read count of the first zone is greater than the write count of the first zone, wherein the memory blocks include a single-level cell (SLC) or a multi-level cell (MLC), and wherein the memory blocks including the SLC or MLC have a second wear level that are more deteriorated than the predetermined memory block of the plurality of memory blocks” (lines 3-12). This limitation is indefinite for 2 reasons. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the memory blocks” (see claim 2 above). Second, the two instances of “the memory blocks” appear to have conflicting characteristics, as they appear to simultaneously include a TLC or QLC, and also to include a SLC or MLC, and are simultaneously more and less deteriorated than the predetermined memory block;
Claim 6, language “recall” (line 8). This limitation is indefinite, as one having ordinary skill in the art would not know what “recall” is intended to mean in this context (see Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) above.
Claim 7:
Language “add at least one memory block to the first zone, when a write count of the first zone is greater than a read count of the first zone, wherein the at least one memory block has a first wear level and is less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks; and add at least one memory block to the first zone, when the read count of the first zone is greater than the write count of the first zone, wherein the at least one memory block as a second wear level and is more deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks; and” (lines 4-11). This limitation is indefinite, for 3 reasons. First, the limitation “the at least one memory block” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there are 4 different references to “at least one memory block” (lines 4, 8, 14, and 18). Second, the terms “a write count” and “a read count” of the first zone have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as it is unclear whether they refer to the existing “read and write count information of a first zone” (claim 1, line 5), or to something else. Third, the at least one memory block appears to have conflicting characteristics – it appears to simultaneously have a first and second wear level, and be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block;
Language “recall at least one memory block from the first zone, when the write count of the first zone is greater than the read count of the first zone, wherein the at least one memory block has a second wear level and is more deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the first subset of memory blocks; and recall at least one memory block from the first zone, when the read count of the first zone is greater than the write count of the first zone, wherein the at least one memory block has a first wear level and is less deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks; and” (lines 14-21). This limitation is indefinite, for 4 reasons. First, the limitation “the at least one memory block” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there are 4 different references to “at least one memory block” (lines 4, 8, 14, and 18). Second, the terms “the write count” and “the read count” of the first zone have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as it is unclear whether they refer to the existing “read and write count information of a first zone” (claim 1, line 5), or to something else. Third, the at least one memory block appears to have conflicting characteristics – it appears to simultaneously have a first and second wear level, and be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block. Fourth, the limitation “recall” (lines 14 and 18) is indefinite, as one having ordinary skill in the art would not know what “recall” is intended to mean in this context (see Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) above;
Claim 9:
language “a zone open request from a plurality of hosts” (lines 2-3). This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to mean that there is a single zone open request collectively sent from a plurality of hosts, or if it means that each of the plurality of hosts sends a respective zone open request. As Examiner is unable to determine which is the intended interpretation, the limitation is indefinite;
language “changing a zone opened to the first host based on the read and write level of the first zone” (lines 10-11). This limitation is indefinite, because a plain reading of the claim suggests that “a zone opened” must refer to a zone that is already opened, such as the first zone, and “changing a zone” must mean altering that already opened zone. However, dependent claim 10, suggests that this actually refers to opening a new zone, rather than changing an existing one. Additionally, the specification distinguishes between “zone open” requests to open additional zones, or “zone size change requests” to change zone size (¶ 49); it does not explicitly describe a “zone change” request which includes receiving an additional zone open request. (see MPEP § 2173.03 - “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty”);
Claim 10, language “receiving the zone change request […] includes receiving an additional zone open request from the first host” (lines 1-2). See claim 9 above;
Claim 11, language “opening, to the first host as a second zone, at least one memory block having a first wear level, wherein the at least one memory block is more deteriorated than a predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when a read count of the first zone is greater than a write count of the first zone; and opening, toe the first host as a second zone, at least one memory block having a second wear level, wherein the at least one memory block is less deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when the write count of the first zone is greater than the read count of the first zone” (lines 4-11). This limitation is indefinite, for 4 reasons. First, the limitation “the at least one memory block” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there are 2 different references to “at least one memory block” (lines 4 and 8). Second, the terms “a write count” and “a read count” of the first zone have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as it is unclear whether they refer to the existing “read and write level of a first zone” (claim 9, line 7), or to something else. Third, the at least one memory block appears to have conflicting characteristics – it appears to simultaneously have a first and second wear level, and be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block. Fourth, it is ambiguous whether the conditional language “when a [write/read] count of the first zone is greater than a [read/write] count of the first zone” is meant to refer to “open memory blocks”, or “wherein the memory blocks are [less/more] deteriorated”, or whether it is a joint condition of the two. As Examiner is unable to determine the intended meaning, the limitation is indefinite;
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 11 above;
Claim 14, language “adding, to the first zone, at least one memory block having a high wear level, wherein the at least one memory block is more deteriorated than a predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when a read count of the first zone is greater than a write count of the first zone; and adding, to the first zone, at least one memory block having a low wear level wherein the at least one memory block is less deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks when the write count of the first zone is greater than the read count of the first zone” (lines 4-11). This limitation is indefinite, for 4 reasons. First, the limitation “the at least one memory block” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there are 2 different references to “at least one memory block” (lines 4 and 8). Second, the terms “a write count” and “a read count” of the first zone have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as it is unclear whether they refer to the existing “read and write level” (claim 9, line 7), or to something else. Third, the at least one memory block appears to have conflicting characteristics – it appears to simultaneously have a first and second wear level, and be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block. Fourth, the limitations “high wear level” (line 4) and “low wear level” (line 8) are indefinite relative terms which render the limitation indefinite. No point of comparison is given which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a wear level qualifies as sufficiently “high” or “low”;
Claim 16, language “recalling, from the first zone, at least one memory block having a low wear level wherein the at least one memory block is less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block among the first subset of memory blocks within the first zone when a read count of the first zone is greater than a write count of the first zone; or recalling, from the first zone, at least one memory block having a high wear level wherein the at least on one memory block is more deteriorated than the predetermined memory block among the plurality of memory blocks within the first zone when the write count of the first zone is greater than the read count of the first zone” (lines 4-11). This limitation is indefinite, for 5 reasons. First, the limitation “the at least one memory block” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as there are two different references to “at least one memory block” (lines 4 and 8). Second, the terms “the write count” and “the read count” of the first zone have insufficient antecedent basis in the claims, as it is unclear whether they refer to the existing “read and write level” (claim 9, line 7), or to something else. Third, the at least one memory block appears to have conflicting characteristics – it appears to simultaneously have a first and second wear level, and be simultaneously more and less deteriorated than a predetermined memory block. Fourth, the limitation “recall” (lines 14 and 18) is indefinite, as one having ordinary skill in the art would not know what “recall” is intended to mean in this context (see Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) above. Fifth, the limitations “low wear level” (line 4) and “high wear level” (line 8) are indefinite relative terms which render the limitation indefinite. No point of comparison is given which would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a wear level qualifies as sufficiently “high” or “low”;
Claims 10-17 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 9 above.
Claim 19, language “a read count of the first memory block”, “a write count of the first memory block” (line 5). This limitation has insufficient antecedent basis, as there is already antecedent basis for “read and write count information of the first memory block” in claim 18 (line 5); accordingly, it is unclear if “a read count” and “a write count” refer to the read and write count information in claim 8, or whether they refer to something else;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher et al (US 8601202 B1) in view of Cornwell (US 7913032 B1), further in view of Lee (US 2021/0248075 A1).
Re claim 1, Melcher discloses the following:
A storage system comprising: a non-volatile memory configured to include a plurality of memory blocks; and (col. 3, line 59 to col. 4, line 11; col. 4, lines 32-56). The memory is a non-volatile memory including a plurality of blocks;
a storage controller (Fig. 2, memory controller 285; col. 6, line 30 to 54). The storage controller manages wear-leveling (zone open requests);
a zone open request […] to open a second zone to the host including a second subset of memory blocks among the plurality of memory blocks based on […] write count information of a first zone corresponding to the host and based on a wear level of the plurality of memory blocks, wherein the first zone includes a first subset of memory blocks among the plurality of memory blocks (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The request to swap a new partition (second zone) in for an old partition (first zone) as part of wear-leveling (zone open request) is initiated based on erase/program cycle counts (write count information, wear level).
While Melcher discloses initiating a wear-leveling procedure to swap out memory partitions (zones), it does not explicitly disclose a request to do so from a host, or basing the decision on read count information.
Cornwell discloses a storage controller configured to receive a zone open request from a host (col. 2, lines 14-22). The controller may initiate wear-leveling in response to a wear-leveling request (zone open request) from an external host.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear-leveling operations of Melcher to initiate wear leveling in response to a wear-leveling request from a host, as in Cornwell, because Cornwell suggests that this would allow the host to inhibit wear-leveling when the storage is being used for media playback, and enable it when the media player is in other modes, thus allowing a user of the host to the media player without interference, while still utilizing wear-leveling to prolong memory life (col. 10, lines 8-17).
Lee discloses to open a second zone […] based on read […] count information of a first zone (¶ 42). The system maintains read count information to be referenced in a wear-leveling operation (opening a second zone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear leveling of Melcher (combined with Cornwell) to reference read count information in wear leveling, as in Lee, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Melcher (combined with Cornwell) discloses a technique for performing wear-leveling, utilizing erase and program (read) counts to determine partitions to swap. Lee also discloses wear leveling, which has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to utilize read count information in performing wear leveling. It would have been obvious to modify the wear-leveling of Melcher (combined with Cornwell) to utilize read count information in wear-leveling, because it would yield the predictable improvement of mitigating read disturbs caused by excessive reads to a location, by wear-leveling data to a new partition.
Re claim 4, Melcher, Cornwell, and Lee disclose the system of claim 1, and Melcher further discloses that the storage controller is configured to determine a wear level of the plurality of memory blocks based on program and erase cycles of the plurality of memory blocks (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The triggering of wear-leveling is based on a count of erase/program cycles (the wear level) of a partition.
Re claim 5, Melcher, Cornwell, and Lee disclose the system of claim 1, and Melcher further discloses that the […] write count information of the first zone includes […] write count information of the first subset of memory blocks (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The erase/program cycle count (write count information) of a partition (first zone) includes write count information of a subset of blocks comprising said first zone.
Lee discloses that the read […] count information of the first zone includes read […] count information of the first subset of memory blocks (¶ 42). The read count information is for a block (first zone, first subset of memory blocks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 1 above.
Re claim 8, Melcher, Cornwell, and Lee disclose the system of claim 1, and Melcher further discloses the storage controller (Fig. 2, memory controller 285), and [metadata including] a zone number of the first zone, host information corresponding to the first zone, […] write count information of the first zone, and a wear level of the plurality of memory blocks (Fig. 2, partitions 205-210; col. 5, line 50 to col. 6, line 2; 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). There are partition numbers (Fig. 2, partitions 205-210), information about host data stored in a zone (host information corresponding to the first zone (col. 5, line 50 to col. 6, line 2), as well as program/erase information (write count information, wear level information) (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8).
Lee further discloses the storage controller configured to store [metadata including] read […] count information of the first zone (Fig. 2, memory controller 2100, metadata 2102). The memory controller stores metadata including read count information for blocks (the first zone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 1 above.
Claims 9-10, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher in view of Cornwell, further in view of Jain et al (US 2017/0199681), further in view of Lee.
Re claim 9, Melcher discloses the following:
An operating method for a storage system, comprising: allocating a plurality of memory blocks to a plurality of memory zones based on a zone open request (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The request to swap a new partition (second zone) in for an old partition (first zone) as part of wear-leveling (zone open request) is initiated based on erase/program cycle counts (write count information, wear level);
opening a corresponding zone among the plurality of zones (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear-leveling process swaps in and out partitions (opening zones) among a plurality of partitions (zones);
receiving a zone change request (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear leveling involves swapping in and out partitions, which is both a “zone open” and a “zone change” request;
checking a […] write level of a first zone corresponding to the first host among the plurality of zones; checking a wear level of the plurality of memory blocks; and (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The method checks the program/erase cycle count for a partition (write level of a first zone/a wear level of a plurality of blocks) allocated to the host (first host);
changing a zone opened to the first host based on the […] write level of the first zone and based on the wear level of the plurality of memory blocks (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear leveling process swaps partitions (changing a zone opened) based on program/erase count (write level, wear level).
While Melcher discloses initiating a wear-leveling procedure to swap out memory partitions (zones), it does not explicitly disclose a request to do so from a host, or basing the decision on read count information.
Cornwell discloses a zone open request from a […] host[…] receiving a zone change request from a first host (col. 2, lines 14-22). The controller may initiate wear-leveling in response to a wear-leveling request (zone open/change request) from an external host.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear-leveling operations of Melcher to initiate wear leveling in response to a wear-leveling request from a host, as in Cornwell, because Cornwell suggests that this would allow the host to inhibit wear-leveling when the storage is being used for media playback, and enable it when the media player is in other modes, thus allowing a user of the host to the media player without interference, while still utilizing wear-leveling to prolong memory life (col. 10, lines 8-17).
Jain discloses the following:
allocating a plurality of memory blocks to a plurality of zones (Table 910A; ¶ 76). The plurality of assets, including memory (memory blocks) are allocated to respective hosts (corresponding to zones);
a plurality of hosts (¶ 76). There are a plurality of hosts;
opening a corresponding zone among the plurality of zones to each of the plurality of hosts (Table 910A; ¶ 76). The assets are allocated to respective hosts, with each host’s assets corresponding to a zone;
among the plurality of hosts (¶ 76). See (ii) above;
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear-leveling partition allocations of Melcher (combined with Cornwell), to allocate resources across hosts based on wear-leveling, as in Jain, because Jain suggests that allowing resources to be rapidly provisioned across hosts would yield rapid elasticity and quick scaling (¶ 41)
Lee discloses checking a read […] level of a first zone […] changing a zone opened to the first host based on the read […] level of the first zone (¶ 42). The system maintains read count information to be referenced in a wear-leveling operation (changing a zone).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear leveling of Melcher (combined with Jain) to reference read count information in wear leveling, as in Lee, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Melcher (combined with Cornwell and Jain) discloses a technique for performing wear-leveling, utilizing erase and program (read) counts to determine partitions to swap. Lee also discloses wear leveling, which has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to utilize read count information in performing wear leveling. It would have been obvious to modify the wear-leveling of Melcher (combined with Jain) to utilize read count information in wear-leveling, because it would yield the predictable improvement of mitigating read disturbs caused by excessive reads to a location, by wear-leveling data to a new partition.
Re claim 10, Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee disclose the method of claim 9, and Melcher further discloses that the zone change request […] includes […] an additional zone open request (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear-leveling involves swapping out partitions, thus it is both a zone change, and an additional zone open, in that it is opening a new partition and changing it out for the previous one.
Cornwell discloses receiving the zone change request from the first host […] receiving an additional zone open request from the first host (col. 2, lines 14-22). Cornwell receives wear-leveling requests (zone open/zone change) from a host (first host).
Jain discloses a first host from a plurality of hosts (¶ 76). See claim 9 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 9 above.
Re claim 13, Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee disclose the method of claim 9, and Melcher further discloses that the zone change request […] includes […] a zone size expansion request (claim 7). The wear-leveling (zone change request) can swap out a partition having one block size, for a partition containing a different block size, which may be larger (zone size expansion request).
Cornwell further discloses receiving the zone change request from the first host […] receiving a zone […] request from the first host (col. 2, lines 14-22). Wear-leveling requests come from the host.
Jain discloses a first host among the plurality of hosts (¶ 76). See claim 9 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 9 above.
Re claim 15, Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee disclose the method of claim 9, and Melcher further discloses that the zone change request […] includes […] a zone size reduction request (claim 7). The wear-leveling (zone change request) can swap out a partition having one block size, for a partition containing a different block size, which may be smaller (zone size reduction request).
Cornwell further discloses receiving the zone change request from the first host […] receiving a zone […] request from the first host (col. 2, lines 14-22). Wear-leveling requests come from the host.
Jain discloses a first host among the plurality of hosts (¶ 76). See claim 9 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 9 above.
Re claim 17, Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee disclose the method of claim 9, and Melcher further discloses that the zone change request […] includes […] a zone close request and an additional zone open request for the first zone (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear-leveling (zone change request) can swap out one partition for another (a close request and additional zone open request);
Cornwell further discloses receiving the zone change request from the first host […] receiving a zone […] request from the first host (col. 2, lines 14-22). Wear-leveling requests come from the host.
Jain discloses a first host among the plurality of hosts (¶ 76). See claim 9 above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to combine Melcher, Cornwell, Jain, and Lee, for the reasons noted in claim 9 above.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melcher in view of Lee.
Re claim 18, Melcher discloses the following:
A storage system comprising: a non-volatile memory configured to include a plurality of memory blocks; and (col. 3, line 59 to col. 4, line 11; col. 4, lines 32-56). The memory is a non-volatile memory including a plurality of blocks;
a storage controller (Fig. 2, memory controller 285; col. 6, line 30 to 54). The storage controller manages wear-leveling (zone open requests);
configured a request to write a data for a first memory block among the plurality of memory blocks from a host (col. 5, line 50 to col. 6, line 2). The address mapper receives a write request from the host, and forwards the translated request to the memory controller;
and to perform [wear leveling] for the first memory block based on […] write count information of the first memory block and a wear level of the plurality of memory blocks (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The memory controller performs a wear-leveling swap of partitions including a first memory block, based on write count and wear-level information for a zone including a block.
While Melcher discloses initiating a wear-leveling procedure to swap out memory partitions (zones), it does not explicitly disclose garbage collection.
Lee discloses garbage collection […] based on read […] count information of a first zone (¶ 42). The system maintains read count information to be referenced in a wear-leveling operation (¶ 42), which can include garbage collection (¶ 40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the wear leveling of Melcher to reference read count information in garbage collection, as in Lee, because it would be applying a known technique to improve a similar system in the same way. Melcher discloses a technique for performing wear-leveling, utilizing erase and program (read) counts to determine partitions to swap. Lee also discloses wear leveling, which has been improved in a similar way to the claimed invention, to utilize read count information in performing wear leveling. It would have been obvious to modify the wear-leveling of Melcher to utilize read count information in wear-leveling, because it would yield the predictable improvement of mitigating read disturbs caused by excessive reads to a location, by wear-leveling data to a new partition.
Re claim 20, Melcher and Lee disclose the system of claim 18, and Melcher further discloses that the wear level of the plurality of memory blocks is determined based on a program and erase cycle (col. 7, line 52 to col. 8, line 8). The wear level is based on a program/erase cycle count.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kamran et al (US 2022/0121563 A1). Monitors usage metrics for storage blocks including read/write ratios (¶ 54).
Higgins et al (US 2017/0286288 A1). Compares superblock read disturb counts to a threshold to determine superblocks for wear-leveling (¶ 68-71).
Lee (US 2011/0320688 A1). Calculates a stress index for the purpose of wear-leveling comprising a read count, write count, and erase count (claim 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132