CTNF 19/198,771 CTNF 81280 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by this Examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 May 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by this Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the applicant has provided evidence that the applicant intends the term "computer-readable storage medium” to include non-statutory matter. The applicant describes a computer-readable storage medium as including open ended language and thus it is reasonable to interpret it to include all possible mediums, including non-statutory mediums (see paragraphs [0077]-[0078] of the specification, “a machine-readable storage medium … also known as a computer-readable medium ... shall accordingly be taken to include, but not limited to, solid-state memories …”). The words "storage" and/or "recording" are insufficient to convey only statutory embodiments to one of ordinary skill in the art absent an explicit and deliberate limiting definition or clear differentiation between storage media and transitory media in the disclosure. As such, the claims are drawn to a form of energy. Energy is not one of the four categories of invention and therefore these claims are not statutory. Energy is not a series of steps or acts and thus is not a process. Energy is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. Energy is not a combination of substances and therefore not a composition of matter. The Examiner suggests amending the claims to read as a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Per claim 1, line 7, “the good blocks” is indefinite as line 6 teaches “good blocks in each plane of the memory device”. It is unclear which specific good blocks are being referred to in line 7’s grouping step. It would be more appropriate to delete “the” before “good blocks” on line 7. Per claim 5, line 3, “the same physical block numbers” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It would be more appropriate to replace “the same” with “identical” on line 3 (similar to claims 14, 16 and 20). Per claim 7, line 3, it would be more appropriate to replace “the same” with “identical” for similar reasons set forth above for claim 5. Per claim 10, lines 4-5, “the good blocks” is indefinite as lines 3-4 teach “good blocks in each plane of multiple planes of a memory device”. It is unclear which specific good blocks are being referred to in line 4’s grouping step. It would be more appropriate to delete “the” before “good blocks” on line 4. Per claim 18, lines 6-7, “the good blocks” is indefinite as lines 4-5 teach “good blocks in each plane of multiple planes of a memory device”. It is unclear which specific good blocks are being referred to in line 6’s grouping step. It would be more appropriate to delete “the” before “good blocks” on line 6. Per claim 20, on lines 3-4, “the grouping of the first plane with the second plane” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears that the claim should be dependent on claim 19 as that claim provides sufficient antecedent basis for “grouping the first plane with the second plane”. For prior art rejection purposes claim 20 is assumed to be a dependent claim of 19. All dependent claims are rejected as inheriting the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 8-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. [Pub.No.: US 20160019982 A1] (hereinafter “Suzuki”) . Independent Claims: Per claim 1 , Suzuki teaches: A computing sub-system (see Fig. 2 memory system 20) comprising: a memory device comprising multiple planes, each plane comprising multiple blocks (see Figs. 1A-C and paragraph [0020], for NAND Chip comprising planes PL 1-4, each comprising blocks 11-14, 21-24, 31-34 and 41-44); a processing device (see Fig. 2, controller 25) coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: identifying good blocks in each plane of the memory device (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074] and Figs. 9-10, classify blocks in each plane based on quality measurement, the groups with the higher qualities can be viewed as the claimed good blocks); and generating multiple block sets by grouping the good blocks (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074] and Figs. 9-11, generating Multi-Planes A-E by grouping blocks in each plane based on quality measurements), each block set comprising two blocks (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074] and Figs. 9-11, each of Multi-Planes A-E comprises at least two blocks, each from a respective plane), the generating of the multiple block sets comprising generating a block set by grouping a first block from a first plane with a second block from a second plane (see paragraphs [0072]-[0074] and Figs. 9-11, each of Multi-Planes A-E comprises at least one block from plane PL1 and plane PL2). Per claim 10 , the claim is the method performing the functions of claim 1’s sub-system. As such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis. Per claim 18 , the claim is the computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processing device performs the functions of claim 1’s sub-system. As such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis. Dependent Claims: Per claim 8 , Suzuki further teaches generating a mapping of the multiple block sets, the mapping identifying a pair of blocks in each block set; and storing the mapping of the multiple block sets (see Fig. 11, the multi-plane setting information is stored, see paragraph [0067], lines 14-15). Per claim 9 , Suzuki further teaches the first plane has a highest number of good blocks among the multiple planes of the memory device (the number of higher quality blocks in each plane is completely dependent on the physical conditions of the planes and the results of the measuring operation of paragraph [0072]. Because the higher ranked groups are considered to contain the good blocks, Plane PL2 in Fig. 10 can be mapped to the claimed first plane as it contains at least two blocks in the first group and five blocks in the second group (Plane PL2 has the highest total of blocks ranked in the first and second groups)).; and the generating of the multiple block sets results in the first plane having one or more ungrouped blocks (see paragraph [0078], 5-11, the blocks with quality lower than a predetermined value are considered to be deteriorated and are not grouped with “the other groups”. Here the claimed term “ungrouped” is interpreted to mean “not grouped with the other groups”). Per claim 17 , the claim is the method performing the functions of claim 8’s sub-system. As such it is rejected on the same grounds mutatis mutandis. Potential Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 11-16 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 (for claims 19-20) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potential allowable subject matter: Per claim 2, Suzuki fails to teach or render obvious: 1) generating multiple plane sets from the multiple planes, the generating of the multiple plane sets including generating a plane set by grouping the first plane with the second plane; 2) the grouping of the first block from the first plane with the second block from the second plane is based on the first plane and the second plane being included in the plane set. Suzuki does not group planes into plane sets or group the good blocks based on the grouping of the planes. In an analogous reference, Oh et al. [Pub.No.: US 20190310774 A1] (hereinafter “Oh”) teaches grouping blocks based on quality into superblocks (see Oh, paragraphs [0085]-[0090] and [0101]-[0103]). However, Oh fails to address Suzuki’s deficiencies set forth above. Claims 3-7 are dependent on claim 2 and as such are potentially allowable for at least the same reasons. Per claim 11, the claim is the method performing the functions of claim 2’s sub-system. As such it is potentially allowable for the same reasons mutatis mutandis. Claims 12-16 are dependent on claim 11 and as such are potentially allowable for at least the same reasons. Per claim 19, the claim is the computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processing device performs the functions of claim 2’s sub-system. As such it is potentially allowable for the same reasons mutatis mutandis. Per claim 20, as set forth above in its rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, the instant claim is assumed to be a dependent claim of claim 19. As such it is potentially allowable for the same reasons mutatis mutandis. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN X GU whose telephone number is (571)272-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, Monday through Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tim Vo can be reached on 571-272-3642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /SHAWN X GU/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2138 11 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 2 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 3 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 4 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 5 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 6 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 7 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 8 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/198,771 Page 9 Art Unit: 2138
Prosecution Insights