DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 19/043,596 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application, there are 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
INFORMATION CONCERNING DRAWINGS
Drawings
The applicant's drawings submitted 2/3/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF REFERENCES CITED BY APPLICANT
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 (C), the applicant's submission of the Information Disclosure Statement, dated 4/23/2025, is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. ' 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
DOUBLE PATENTING
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over US 12,248,697. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Instant Application
US 12,248,697
1. A method comprising:
initiating a memory page scan on a memory page of a plurality of memory pages of a memory device;
determining whether an update trim flag is set, wherein a set update trim flag indicates that a second trim value is to be used for the memory page scan and a cleared update trim flag indicates that a first trim value is to be used for the memory page scan; and
setting, based on a data state metric associated with a first page read and a data state metric associated with a second page read, the update trim flag.
A method comprising:
responsive to initiating a memory page scan on a first memory page of a plurality of memory pages of a memory device,
determining whether an update trim flag is set, wherein a set update trim flag indicates that a second trim value is to be used for the memory page scan and a cleared update trim flag indicates that the first trim value is to be used for the memory page scan; responsive to determining that the update trim flag is not set, performing a first page read on the first memory page utilizing the first trim value; determining whether a first data state metric associated with the first page read satisfies a predetermined threshold value, wherein exceeding the predetermined threshold value indicates that the memory device is at or near end-of-life; responsive to determining that the first data state metric satisfies the predetermined threshold value, performing a second page read on the first memory page utilizing the second trim value to determine whether the second trim value should be used for further memory page scans; determining whether a second data state metric associated with the second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value; responsive to determining that the second data state metric associated with the second page read does not satisfy the predetermined threshold value, setting the update trim flag; and responsive to determining that the second data state metric associated with the second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value, performing a folding operation.
This rejection has been made as all limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are present in the claims of US 12,248,697, and therefore claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by US 12,248,697. See MPEP 804(II)(B)(2). Claim 8 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 15 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale. Further, the dependent claims of both cases contain substantially similar limitations.
REJECTIONS NOT BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 7 and 14 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.
Claim 7 recites “wherein determining whether the update trim flag comprises: determining that the memory page is empty.” This is unclear, and is believed to mean “wherein determining whether the update trim flag is set comprises: determining that the memory page is empty.” Claim 14 contains a similar issue. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al (US 11,941,293).
Regarding Claim 1, teaches a method comprising:
initiating a memory page scan on a memory page of a plurality of memory pages of a memory device (page scan corresponding to the operation of Fig. 17, which reads data at either step S411 or S450 in units of a page, C8 L57 – C9 L19);
determining whether an update trim flag is set (the update trim flag corresponding to the first read voltage being registered in a history table at step S410 of Fig. 17), wherein a set update trim flag indicates that a second trim value is to be used for the memory page scan (if the update trim flag is set, the decision at step S410 is “Yes,” and a “first read voltage of a history table” is used as the second trim value) and a cleared update trim flag indicates that a first trim value is to be used for the memory page scan (if the update trim flag is cleared, the decision at step S410 is “No,” and a “a default read voltage” is used as the first trim value); and
setting, based on a data state metric associated with a first page read (first page read corresponding to the read at step S450 of Fig. 17, the metric corresponding to an uncorrectable error being detected at step S451 of Fig. 17) and a data state metric associated with a second page read (second page read corresponding to the read at step S452 of Fig. 17, the metric corresponding to an uncorrectable error being detected at step S453 of Fig. 17), the update trim flag (step S440 of Fig. 17, where the read voltage will now be registered in the history table, indicating the update trim flag is set).
Regarding Claim 2, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to determining that the update trim flag is not set, performing the memory page scan using the first trim value (if the update trim flag is cleared, the decision at step S410 is “No,” and a “a default read voltage” is used as the first trim value).
Regarding Claim 3, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining whether the data state metric associated with the first page read satisfies a predetermined threshold value (step S451 of Fig. 17, the data state metric corresponding to being at least one uncorrectable error), wherein exceeding the predetermined threshold value indicates that the memory device is at or near end-of-life (uncorrectable errors indicate a device is near end-of-life);
responsive to determining that the data state metric associated with the first page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value (“Yes” at step S451 of Fig. 17), performing the second page read on the memory page utilizing the second trim value to determine whether the second trim value should be used for further memory page scans (the second page read is performed at step S452, and if it is successful, the history table is updated at step S440 so that the successful voltage can be used in subsequent page scans));
determining whether the data state metric associated with the second page read, satisfies the predetermined threshold value (step S453 of Fig. 17, the data state metric corresponding to being at least one uncorrectable error); and
responsive to determining that the data state metric associated with the second page read does not satisfy the predetermined threshold value (“No” at step S453 of Fig. 17), setting the update trim flag (step S440 of Fig. 17, where the read voltage will now be registered in the history table, indicating the update trim flag is set).
Regarding Claim 5, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to determining that the update trim flag is set, performing the memory page scan using the second trim value (if the update trim flag is set, the decision at step S410 is “Yes,” and a “first read voltage of a history table” is used as the second trim value).
Claim 8 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 2, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 3, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 5, and is rejected under similar rationale.
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 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 11,941,293) in view of Kim (US 2019/0243734).
Regarding Claim 4, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
responsive to determining that the data state metric associated with the second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value, performing a folding operation.
Kim teaches determining that a data state metric associated with the a second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value and performing a folding operation (the threshold value corresponding to the amount of errors in the page that can be corrected at step S220 of Fig. 11, which is satisfied when error correction fails to succeed at the “NO” path of step S230 of Fig. 11, the first data state metric corresponding to the number of errors found using the first trim value, and if the errors are more than can be corrected, steps S210-S250 will be performed again and a folding operation may be performed if the read voltage reaches a given number, step S320 -S330 of Fig. 12, and the folding operation is performed because the memory device is near end-of-life).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the folding operation of Kim in the cited prior art so that data is not written to blocks prone to errors.
Regarding Claim 6, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
determining whether the data state metric associated with the second page read, satisfies the predetermined threshold value; and
responsive to determining that the data state metric associated with the second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value, performing a folding operation.
Kim teaches determining whether the data state metric associated with the second page read, satisfies a predetermined threshold value; and
responsive to determining that the data state metric associated with the second page read satisfies the predetermined threshold value, performing a folding operation (the threshold value corresponding to the amount of errors in the page that can be corrected at step S220 of Fig. 11, which is satisfied when error correction fails to succeed at the “NO” path of step S230 of Fig. 11, the first data state metric corresponding to the number of errors found using the first trim value, and if the errors are more than can be corrected, steps S210-S250 will be performed again and a folding operation may be performed if the read voltage reaches a given number, step S320 -S330 of Fig. 12, and the folding operation is performed because the memory device is near end-of-life).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the folding operation of Kim in the cited prior art so that data is not written to blocks prone to errors.
Claim 11 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 4, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 6, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (US 11,941,293) in view of Iwasaki et al (US 2021/0055878).
Regarding Claim 7, the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein determining whether the update trim flag comprises: determining that the memory page is empty.
Iwasaki teaches skipping a scan for pages that are empty (Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art at the time to have implemented skipping a page scan (as taught by Iwasaki) in the cited prior art, and therefore not determining whether the update trim flag is set comprises determining that the memory page is empty, in order to avoid scanning pages that are not written.
Claim 14 is the system corresponding to the method of claim 7, and is rejected under similar rationale.
CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
STATUS OF CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
The following is a summary of the treatment and status of all claims in the application as recommended by M.P.E.P. ' 707.07(i):
CLAIMS REJECTED IN THE APPLICATION
Per the instant office action, claims 1-20 have been rejected.
DIRECTION OF FUTURE CORRESPONDENCES
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Giardino whose telephone number is (571) 270-3565 and can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Jared Rutz can be reached at 571-272-5535. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/MARK A GIARDINO JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135