DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed February 4, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claims 5 and 12: Storing the last programmed word line in an entry of a data structure associated with the memory device.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Improper grammatical form: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 consistently recite the operations in participle form (e.g., "identifying", "performing", "associating", "sending"). Claims 5 and 12 break this parallel structure by reciting "identifying the last programmed wordline of the block before the block was closed; and store, in an entry of a data structure…". The shift from participial form "identifying" to the bare verb "store" renders the claim unclear and improper in form. Appropriate correction would be to amend "store" to "storing" so that the limitation reads in parallel construction with the remainder of the claim and with the independent claims.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, 15, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Redundant phrasing: recite the phrase "at least one or more". The expression "at least one" already encompasses one or more than one. The addition of "or more" is redundant and renders the claim language less clear. Appropriate correction would be to amend the phrase to either "at least one" or "one or more" throughout the noted claims.
Applicant is required to make the necessary corrections as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 require identification of a “closed” block followed by programming of one or more wordlines adjacent to a last programmed wordline of that block before the block was closed. The claimed subject matter therefore presupposes a closed block that still contains unprogrammed wordlines available for subsequent programming.
The specification, however, does not demonstrate possession of such subject matter. Paragraph 17 expressly defines a “closed” (or “full”) block as one in which all of the pages have associated memory cells that have been programmed. Under that definition there are no remaining wordlines that can be programmed after the block is closed. The specification’s own definition of the key claim term is therefore incompatible with the claim limitations that depend on that term.
While the specification describes a reopening protocol for certain partial blocks that have been taken out of the open programming pool, it does so against the background of an affirmative definition that equates “closed” with fully programmed. The figures further illustrate the inconsistency (block B3 labeled closed while still appearing partial; block B4 labeled open while also appearing partial).
Taken together, the specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a “closed” block of the kind required by the claims - i.e., a block that has been closed yet still retains unprogrammed wordlines that can be programmed pursuant to the claimed protocol. See MPEP 2163, 2163.02.
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 inherit the same written description deficiency and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite identifying “a block of the memory device, wherein the block is closed,” and further recite sending a programming command to program one or more wordlines “adjacent to a last programmed wordline of the block before the block was closed.” The term “closed” (and the related phrase “before the block was closed”) renders the claims indefinite.
The specification does not provide a clear, consistent, or workable definition of what constitutes a “closed” block.
Paragraph 17 affirmatively states: “Relatedly, a ‘closed’ or ‘full’ block can refer to a block in which all of the pages have associated memory cells that have been programmed.” Under this definition a closed block is a fully programmed block.
The same paragraph and the surrounding discussion also describe a “block usage policy that closes a block after a certain period of time… such that the additional pages of the block cannot be written, even if the block remains physically open,” and refer to such a block as remaining “partially written.”
Paragraph 18 further refers to closing a block after a triggering event “in some memory sub-systems,” without clearly adopting that policy as part of the claimed invention.
Figures 3A and related description label block B3 as closed while it still appears to contain unprogrammed wordlines, and label adjacent block B4 as open, creating visual and textual inconsistency as to what distinguishes a closed block from an open block.
The claim language itself requires that the closed block still possess unprogrammed wordlines that can be programmed after the block “was closed.” That requirement is incompatible with the specification’s own definition of a closed block as one in which all pages have already been programmed.
Because the specification uses the term “closed” in multiple, mutually inconsistent ways, and because the claims require a meaning (a block that is closed yet still has remaining unprogrammed wordlines) that the specification’s most explicit definition excludes, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claims with reasonable certainty. See MPEP 2173.02, 2173.05(a).
Dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 inherit the same indefinite terminology and are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
For purposes of applying prior art under MPEP 2173.06, and solely for examination convenience, the term “closed” (and the related phrase “before the block was closed”) is interpreted under a practical working understanding as referring to a block that is no longer available for further programming of any remaining wordlines. This understanding encompasses any reason a block may be taken out of the normal programming pool, including (but not limited to) logical closure under a time-based or event-based usage policy, quarantine after an operation failure, association with a folding or media-management operation, or other health or policy-based removal from the open programming set.
This practical working understanding is adopted only to permit a complete examination on the merits. It does not cure the indefiniteness of the claims. The specification still fails to provide a clear, consistent definition of the term “closed,” and the affirmative statement in paragraph 17 equating a closed block with a fully programmed block remains incompatible with the claim limitations that require remaining unprogrammed wordlines. Accordingly, the claims remain indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) notwithstanding the practical working understanding used for prior-art purposes.
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, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz et al. (US 20230195572; "Betz"), in view of Kumar et al. (US 20230115979; "Kumar").
Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, notwithstanding the rejection for written description and indefiniteness above, Betz discloses a system / method / non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions comprising:
a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device (Fig. 1 memory sub-system 110 and controller 115),
to perform operations comprising:
identifying a block of the memory device, wherein the block is closed, and wherein the block comprises a plurality of wordlines (Fig. 2 where it illustrates block PB 230-1 with the quarantine flag set. See also Abstr. "responsive to detecting a failure of a memory operation associated with a physical memory segment of the plurality of physical memory segments, quarantining the physical memory segment") ;
performing a data integrity scan on the block to determine one or more reliability statistics associated with the block (Abstr. "responsive to quarantining the physical memory segment, performing one or more scanning operations on the physical memory segment, and determining, based on results of the one or more scanning operations, a viability status of the physical memory segment, wherein the viability status indicates an ability of the physical memory segment to store data");
in response to determining that at least one of the one or more reliability statistics satisfies a first threshold criterion, associating the block with a first plurality of blocks, wherein each block of the first plurality of blocks is associated with at least one or more reliability statistics that satisfies the first threshold criterion (para. 16; "As a result of such diagnostic scanning", "the memory sub-system controller can take a number of actions, such as", "remove the quarantine flag and place the block into normal circulation");
Betz discloses identifying an out-of-pool (closed) block, performing a data integrity / reliability scan on that block and associating the block with a first plurality of usable blocks (returning it to normal circulation), but is silent with respect to sending a programming command to the block.
However, Kumar teaches and sending a programming command to program one or more wordlines of the block, wherein the one or more wordlines are adjacent to a last programmed wordline of the block before the block was closed (Fig. 6. See also para 56; "This may include programming 620 one or more dummy wordlines in the cells of the wordlines following the last written wordline of the block.". Further, see para. 44; "writing of one or more dummy lines to the wordlines immediately following a last programmed wordline of the block". It is noted that Kumar's dummy word lines are after / adjacent to / following the last written word line of the block.)
Betz and Kumar are from the same field of endeavor as applicant' s invention directed to controller level management of NAND flash blocks whose reliability is in question. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Betz - removing questionable blocks from the programming pool, and scanning and restoring viable blocks to service – with the application of adjacent word line programming technique as taught by Kumar once the block has been returned to service. The combination yields the predictable result of a more complete reliability management protocol that improves data integrity. No unexpected results are required.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
As applied, Kumar further discloses wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
in response to identifying the block, determining that the last programmed wordline of the block satisfies a second threshold criterion, wherein the second threshold criterion corresponds to a threshold count of the plurality of wordlines (Abstr. "Partially written blocks may be those having a fill percentage less than a threshold. The threshold may be a function of the PEC count of the block.". See also para. 54; "The value of X.sup.PEC may therefore be used as the minimum allowed fill percentage of a partially written block with the PEC count of the partially written block that has an acceptable probability of meeting the constraint of LDPC.sub.max.". And see para. 56; "If the fill percentage of the block is found to be greater than X.sup.PEC as determined at step 616, then no mitigation is performed", "If the fill percentage of the block is found to be equal to or below X.sup.PEC then mitigation may be performed." It is noted that under the practical working understanding, determining that the last programmed word line (or the programmed fill level corresponding to the that last programmed word line) satisfies a threshold count of the plurality of word lines maps directly to Kumar's fill percentage threshold check performed on a partially written block.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 16 respectively.
As applied, Kumar further discloses wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the last programmed wordline of the block does not satisfy the second threshold criterion (para. 56; "If the fill percentage of the block is found to be equal to or below X.sup.PEC then mitigation may be performed",
Kumar does not explicitly place the low fill block into a second plurality of blocks defined by reliability statistics that fail a first threshold.
However, as applied, Betz further discloses associating the block with a second plurality of blocks, wherein one or more blocks of the second plurality of blocks is associated with at least one or more reliability statistics that do not satisfy the first threshold criterion (para. 57; "If the number of bad (non-viable) partitions (e.g., pages) in the PB exceeds a threshold, at operation 470, the processing logic can retire the PB").
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
As applied, Betz further discloses wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the at least one of the one or more reliability statistics does not satisfy the first threshold criterion, associating the block with a second plurality of blocks, wherein one or more blocks of the second plurality of blocks is associated with at least one or more reliability statistics that do not satisfy the first threshold criterion (para. 57; "If the number of bad (non-viable) partitions (e.g., pages) in the PB exceeds a threshold, at operation 470, the processing logic can retire the PB").
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively.
As applied, Betz further discloses wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
in response to associating the block with the first plurality of blocks, performing, at a predefined frequency, another data integrity scan on the block to determine the one or more reliability statistics associated with the block (para. 36; "the FMC 113 can perform diagnostic scans at fixed intervals of time that has elapsed since the commencement (or conclusion) of an earlier diagnostic scan. In some embodiments, the FMC 113 can perform diagnostic scans at specific time intervals—every hour, every day, or every other time unit, as configured by the memory sub-system 110 and/or by the host system 120").
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively.
As applied, Betz further discloses wherein, to identify the block of the memory device, the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
identifying that the block is associated with a folding operation, wherein data stored at the block is written to another block of the memory device (para. 17; "In some embodiments, the block can be folded (with its data transferred to other blocks), placed on the free list of blocks, and subsequently treated similarly to blocks that failed an erase or a program operation.").
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betz et al. (US 20230195572; "Betz"), in view of Kumar et al. (US 20230115979; "Kumar"), and further in view of Guo et al. (US 20190034290; "Guo").
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Betz and Kumar combined disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 8 respectively.
As applied, Betz further discloses wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the at least one of the one or more reliability statistics satisfies the first threshold criterion (para. 57; "The processing logic can then perform a number of diagnostic scans to determine the viability of the PB. At operation 455, if the PB is determined to be good, the processing logic can perform operation 460 and place the PB into standard circulation"),
Betz and Kumar are silent as to storing an indication of a last programmed word line in an entry of a data structure.
However, Guo teaches identifying the last programmed wordline of the block before the block was closed; and store, in an entry of a data structure associated with the memory device, the last programmed wordline of the block before the block was closed (Fig. 3C where it illustrates table 226 which stores the last written word line ID. See also para 103; "the storage device uses the last written world line ID in the open block status table 226 to identify the boundary regions of the open block").
Betz, Kumar and Guo are from the same field of endeavor as applicant' s invention directed to controller level management of NAND flash blocks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Betz (as modified by Kumar) to incorporate the technique of Guo to record the last programed word line of that block in a data structure. Doing so enables subsequent management of any remaining unprogrammed word lines and is a conventional technique for tracking the programmed extent of partial blocks. The combination produces the predictable result of a reliability gated reopening protocol that also maintains an explicit record of the last programmed word line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goss et al. (US 9858002) – reliability scanning of partially programmed blocks and threshold based decisions to keep or refresh those blocks.
Goss et al. (US 10089170) – determining an error sensitivity reliability metric of the last-written page of a partial block and extending the open block timeout.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James S. Wells whose telephone number is (703)756-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Alexander Sofocleous can be reached at (571)272-0635. 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.
/James S. Wells/Examiner, Art Unit 2825
/Alfredo Bermudez Lozada/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights