DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 63/654,195 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
All claims are examined with an effective filing date of May 31, 2024.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.04 (II) provides that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.”.
Claims 1-7 are directed to method claims and must be analyzed for any contingent limitations.
Claim 6 recites (incorporating the suggestion in the indefiniteness analysis below) the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to detecting a defective set of memory cells of the plurality of sets of memory cells, identifying, from the plurality of parity groups, an array of sequential numbers of a parity group including a sequential number of the defective set of memory cells;
obtaining, from a predefined sequential number of the array of sequential numbers of the parity group including a sequential number of the defective set of memory cells, redundancy metadata; and
reconstructing, using the obtained redundancy metadata, host data stored in the defective set of memory cells.
The first identifying limitation is explicitly provided to be contingent on the condition of detecting a defective set of memory cells. However, neither claim 1 nor claim 6 recite this detection as a positively required limitation, and as such the condition of detecting a defective set of memory cells is not required in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. As a consequence, the identifying limitation is also not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As a consequence, because the identifying limitation establishes antecedent basis for “the array of sequential numbers” and “the parity group” (see the indefiniteness analysis below), then the obtaining and reconstructing limitations are contingent on the performance of the identifying limitation, and as a consequence are also not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Examiner notes that possible amendments to address the contingent nature of the limitation is to positively recite detecting a defective set of memory cells in order to require the condition or to remove the condition from the identifying limitation entirely to remove the contingent nature.
Claim 7 recites the method of claim 6, wherein identifying, from the plurality of parity groups, the array of sequential numbers of a parity group including the sequential number of the defective set of memory cells comprises:
for each set of memory cells of the plurality of sets of memory cells, calculating, based on a sequential number of a respective set of memory cells and a wordline number derived from the sequential number, a parity group identifier;
appending, to an array of sequential numbers assigned to a parity group identified by the parity group identifier, the sequential number;
for each parity group of a plurality of parity groups, determining whether a sequential number of an array of sequential numbers assigned to a respective parity group includes the sequential number of the defective set of memory cells; and
responsive to determining that the array of sequential number of the respective parity group includes the sequential number of the defective set of memory cells , returning the array of sequential numbers of the respective parity group.
The method of claim 7 expands on the identifying limitation recited within claim 6 which is identified as contingent. However, the limitations of claim 7 do not alter the determination that the condition (detecting a defective set of memory cells) is not required within the scope of claims 6 or 7, so all limitations of claim 7 are also not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
The final limitation of claim 7 is also recited to be performed “responsive to determining that the array of sequential number of the respective parity group includes the sequential number of the defective set of memory cells”, but the limitation immediately prior only recites “determining whether a sequential number… includes the sequential number of the defective set of memory cells”, not that a positive determination is made. As such, the final limitation of claim 7 is further not required within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Examiner notes that amending claim 6 to address the contingent limitation/condition would alter the majority of claim 7, as claim 7’s limitations are identified as part of the contingent identifying limitation, with the exception of the final returning limitation.
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, 13, 14, 19, and 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.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 recite, using claim 6 for example language,
obtaining, from a predefined sequential number of the array of sequential numbers of the parity group, the redundancy metadata; and
reconstructing, using the redundancy metadata...
However, “the array of sequential numbers”, “the parity group”, and “the redundancy metadata” all lack proper antecedent basis, as at this point, claims 1 and 6 have identified generic arrays/parity groups/redundancy metadata, as well as a specific parity group including a sequential number of the defective set of memory cells, and the limitations identified above do not specify which antecedent limitation is referenced. From the context of the claim, it would appear that “the parity group” refers to the specific parity group including a sequential number of the defective set of memory cells”, and as such, for the purpose of examination, it is assumed the claims recite
obtaining, from a predefined sequential number of the array of sequential numbers of the parity group including a sequential number of the defective set of memory cells, redundancy metadata; and
reconstructing, using the obtained redundancy metadata, host data stored in the defective set of memory cells.
This suggestion clearly establishes the specific parity group establishing antecedent basis, which also then establishes antecedent basis for the array of sequential numbers, and as redundancy metadata is obtained in this step and only in this step, then “the obtained redundancy metadata” establishes a clear antecedent basis.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected for dependence on claims 6, 13, and 19 respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As identified in the claim interpretation section, claims 6 and 7 recite limitations identified to be contingent and not required within the broadest reasonable scope of the claims. As all claim limitations identified in the two claims are contingent and not required, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 6 and 7 effectively recite no additional limitations, and consequently claims 6 and 7 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner notes that addressing the contingent nature of the limitations in claim 6 would sufficiently address this rejection, as either fulfilling the condition or removing the contingent nature of the limitations would therefore require the performance of limitations in claims 6 and 7 and so would sufficiently further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, using claim 1 for example language, “for each set of memory cells of a plurality of sets of memory cells of a memory device storing host data, calculating, based on a sequential number associated with a respective set of memory cells and a wordline number derived from the sequential number, a parity group identifier.” The overall context of the invention addressing parity data generation and recovering data from parity is not novel, see Piszczek et al. (US 9,959,062), Ellis et al. (US 9,671,962), Olbrich et al. (US 2012/0266032), Imazaki et al. (US 2014/0281064), Singidi et al. (US 2020/0110661), Chiba et al. (US 2021/0382788), Tadokoro (US 2022/0028456), Yamamoto et al. (US 2022/0382602), Kragel et al. (US 2023/0368857), Muchherla et al. (US 2024/0118971), HIkasa (US 2025/0085886), Bao et al. (WO 2024/026956), Park et al. (CN 101685672), Li et al. (CN 116382591). However, the claimed invention requires that the parity group identifier be calculated from the sequential number (disclosed in the instant application at [0048] to include page numbers for an example embodiment) and a wordline number derived from the sequential number. The references above disclose parity groups, but do not disclose a calculation of the parity group identifier. Piszczek, Imazaki, and Chiba are notable for disclosing parity group identifiers, but just discloses assigning PGID’s to stripes/groups instead of calculating them from two numbers as claimed, let alone specifically from the sequential number or a wordline number derived from the sequential number. Kragel is also notable for providing parity groups across different wordlines, but still fails to disclose a calculation of a zone based on the two claimed numbers.
As a result of a failure to identify prior art references that can anticipate or render the claims obvious, a determination is made that the independent claims are allowed.
The dependent claims identified above are allowed for dependence on one of the independent claims identified above.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piszczek, Ellis, Olbrich, Imazaki, Singidi, Chiba, Tadokoro, Yamamoto, Kragel, Muchherla, Hikasa, Bao, Park, and Li as cited above).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON D HO whose telephone number is (469)295-9093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00 CT.
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 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.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2139
/REGINALD G BRAGDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights