DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Such claim limitations are:
“means for selecting a memory block from a pool of memory blocks…”, “means for determining a first validity count...”, “means for determining a second validity count...”, “means for determining a difference between the first validity count...”, and “means for performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block…” in claim 17.
“means for performing the garbage collection operation on one of the first sub-block and the second sub-block…” in claim 18.
“means for identifying at least one characteristic…” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to coverthe corres ponding structure described inthe specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does notintend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed functionsoas to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation “means for selecting a memory block from a pool of memory blocks…”, “means for determining a first validity count...”, “means for determining a second validity count...”, “means for determining a difference between the first validity count...”, and “means for performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block…” appears to be a sub-block management system which is part of the controller 150 (see Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 58 and 106-112).
Claim limitation “means for performing the garbage collection operation on one of the first sub-block and the second sub-block…” appears to be sub-block management system which is part of the controller 150 (see Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 58 and 106-107).
Claim limitation “means for identifying at least one characteristic…” appears to be sub-block management system which is part of the controller 150 (see Figs. 5-6, paragraphs 58 and 108-112).
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US2024/0069789).
With respect to claim 10, Oh et al. teaches at least one controller (see paragraph 47; controller 11); and
a sub-block management system associated with the at least one controller (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 49; storage controller 11 may include a processor 111, a garbage collection module 112… garbage collection module 112 may select a victim sub-block from among a plurality of sub-blocks based on an operation result of at least two of the number of valid pages) and operable to:
select a memory block for a relocation operation, the memory block being part of a pool of memory blocks that have been identified as candidates for the relocation operation (see paragraph 45; an erase operation may be independently performed on each of the plurality of blocks BLKs. That is, in the second mode, the erase operation may be performed in units of blocks. Also in paragraph 174; a group on which a garbage collection operation is to be performed may be selected. For example, a group that needs a free block may be found, and the group may be selected as the group on which the garbage collection operation is to be performed);
determine a first validity count associated with a first sub-block of the memory block (see paragraph 92; garbage collection management table GTB may store the number of valid pages (e.g., a valid page count (VPC)) corresponding to each of the first sub-blocks 121a);
determine a second validity count associated with a second sub-block of the memory block (see paragraph 92; garbage collection management table GTB may store the number of valid pages (e.g., a valid page count (VPC)) corresponding to each of the first sub-blocks 121a and the second sub-blocks 121b);
determine a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count (see paragraph 110; compare logic CL may compare the first difference value VIDa of the first sub-block SUB_BLK1 and the second difference value VIDb of the second sub-block SUB_BLK2. The garbage collection victim selector 110A may select a sub-block corresponding to the greater (e.g., larger) value of the first difference value VIDa and the second difference value VIDb as a victim sub-block); and
perform the relocation operation on one of the first sub-block and the second sub- block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count exceeds a validity count difference threshold (see paragraph 94; garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the invalid page count IPC from the valid page count VPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the smallest value as the victim sub-block. Alternatively or additionally, the garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the valid page count VPC from the invalid page count IPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the greatest value as the victim sub-block (i.e., difference in each sub-block is compared to determined victim sub-block)).
With respect to claim 11, Oh et al. teaches wherein the sub-block management system is further operable to perform the relocation operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block when the difference between the first validity count and the second validity count is within the validity count difference threshold (see paragraph 94; garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the invalid page count IPC from the valid page count VPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the smallest value as the victim sub-block. Alternatively or additionally, the garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the valid page count VPC from the invalid page count IPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the greatest value as the victim sub-block (i.e., difference in each sub-block is compared to determined victim sub-block)).
With respect to claim 12, Oh et al. teaches wherein the sub-block management system is further operable to perform the relocation operation on the first sub-block when the first sub-block has a lower validity count when compared with the second sub-block (see paragraph 95; when the valid page count VPC is greater than or equal to the threshold value, a sub-block with the lowest (e.g., smallest) valid page count VPC from among the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b may be selected as the victim sub-block).
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US2024/0069789) in view of Shaharabany et al. (US9,916,238).
With respect to claim 13, Oh et al. does not teach wherein the sub-block management system is further operable to identify at least one characteristic associated with data stored in the first sub-block.
However, Shaharabany et al. teaches identifying at least one characteristic associated with data stored in the first sub-block (see column 6, lines 21-27; memory system 100 assigns each of the plurality of blocks with a type based on the locations of the invalid areas in each of the plurality of blocks (act 420). For example, in the illustration shown in FIG. 6, non-continuous invalid pages are typically associated with random data, while continuous invalid pages are typically associated with sequential data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Oh et al. to include the above mentioned to improve system performance and endurance (see Shaharabany; column 7, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 14, Oh et al. does not teach wherein the sub-block management system is further operable to select a destination memory block for the relocation operation based, at least in part, on the at least one characteristic.
However, Shaharabany et al. teaches moving valid data from blocks of a first type to a first target block (act 430) and moving valid data from blocks of a second type to a second target block (act 440). In the example shown in FIG. 5C, this results in Blocks 1, 4, and 5 (the blocks classified as random) being moved to Target Block A and in Blocks 2, 3, and N (the blocks classified as sequential) being moved to Target Block B (see column 6, lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Oh et al. to include the above mentioned to improve system performance and endurance (see Shaharabany; column 7, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 15, Oh et al. does not teach wherein the destination memory block comprises a first sub-block and a second sub-block and wherein at least one of the first sub-block and the second sub-block store data having the at least one characteristic.
However, Shaharabany et al. teaches moving valid data from blocks of a first type to a first target block (act 430) and moving valid data from blocks of a second type to a second target block (act 440). In the example shown in FIG. 5C, this results in Blocks 1, 4, and 5 (the blocks classified as random) being moved to Target Block A and in Blocks 2, 3, and N (the blocks classified as sequential) being moved to Target Block B (see column 6, lines 53-60).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Oh et al. to include the above mentioned to improve system performance and endurance (see Shaharabany; column 7, lines 5-7).
With respect to claim 16, Oh et al. does not teach wherein the sub-block management system is further operable to select an empty destination memory block based, at least in part, on a determination that a sub-block of an available destination memory block stores data having a characteristic that is different from the at least one characteristic associated with the data stored in the first sub- block.
However, Shaharabany et al. teaches wherein garbage collection is performed only on blocks classified with similar obsolescence patterns, valid data from blocks of different types are moved to different target blocks, which preserves the initial classification, if any, of the data blocks. Further, by separately classifying blocks with random data from blocks with sequential data, each data type can be designated to a different target block through garbage collection (see column 6, lines 61-67 and column 7, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Oh et al. to include the above mentioned to improve system performance and endurance (see Shaharabany; column 7, lines 5-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: No prior art or combination of prior art teaches or suggest determining whether a difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within a validity count difference threshold; and performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub- block when the difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within the validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 1; and means for determining a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count; and means for performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count is within a validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Oh et al. (US2024/0069789) teaches compare logic CL may compare the first difference value VIDa of the first sub-block SUB_BLK1 and the second difference value VIDb of the second sub-block SUB_BLK2. The garbage collection victim selector 110A may select a sub-block corresponding to the greater (e.g., larger) value of the first difference value VIDa and the second difference value VIDb as a victim sub-block (see patahtaph 110); and garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the invalid page count IPC from the valid page count VPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the smallest value as the victim sub-block. Alternatively or additionally, the garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the valid page count VPC from the invalid page count IPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the greatest value as the victim sub-block (i.e., difference in each sub-block is compared to determined victim sub-block) (see paragraph 94).
However, Oh et al. does not teach performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub- block when the difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within the validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 1; and means for performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count is within a validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 17.
Tang et al. (US 2023/0393976) teaches the comparing the weighted valid data count corresponding to the first block with a valid data count of the second block; and selecting the garbage collection source block based on comparing the weighted valid data count corresponding to the first block with the valid data count of the second block (see paragraph 78).
However, Tang et al. does not teach performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub- block when the difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within the validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 1; and means for performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub-block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count is within a validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/11/2026, and the argument present in the interview on 06/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The re of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2026, and Interview discussion on 06/02/2026, regarding claim 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argued, in the Interview conducted 06/02/2026, that Oh et al. does not teach performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub- block when the difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within the validity count difference threshold as recited in claim 1.
In response: The examiner disagrees. Claim 10 recites “determine a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count; and perform the relocation operation on one of the first sub-block and the second sub- block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count exceeds a validity count difference threshold”; and not “performing the garbage collection operation on the first sub-block and the second sub- block when the difference between the first validity count associated with the first sub-block and the second validity count associated with the second sub-block is within the validity count difference threshold” as recited in claim 1.
Oh et al. teaches determine a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count (see paragraph 110; compare logic CL may compare the first difference value VIDa of the first sub-block SUB_BLK1 and the second difference value VIDb of the second sub-block SUB_BLK2. The garbage collection victim selector 110A may select a sub-block corresponding to the greater (e.g., larger) value of the first difference value VIDa and the second difference value VIDb as a victim sub-block); and perform the relocation operation on one of the first sub-block and the second sub- block when a difference between the first validity count and the second validity count exceeds a validity count difference threshold (see paragraph 94; garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the invalid page count IPC from the valid page count VPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the smallest value as the victim sub-block. Alternatively or additionally, the garbage collection victim selection component VS may calculate a value obtained by subtracting the valid page count VPC from the invalid page count IPC for each of the first and second sub-blocks 121a and 121b, and may select a sub-block with the greatest value as the victim sub-block (i.e., difference in each sub-block is compared to determined victim sub-block)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Das Sharman et al. (US2022/0114098) teaches an atomic operation is performed for the atomic location based on the entry of the queue in response to the determination that the memory location does not include the existing information (see Abstract).
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 ARACELIS RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1038. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00am-7:30pm.
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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/ARACELIS RUIZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights