DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in response to communications filed 06/25/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The Examiner notes the current action does not include prior art rejections over the current presentation of the claims. The cited relevant prior art references made of record below are considered as pertinent to the claims and disclosed details provided in the Specification.
The claims are subject to the objections and rejections provided herein which must be addressed accordingly.
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim as a continuation of US Application 17/460,112 filed 08/27/2021, now US Patent No. 12,373,111, is herein acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 09/25/2025 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.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/25/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 contains a typographical error in the limitation “wherein the normalized wear metric is further determined based n a second life metric…” which appears to be intended to recite “wherein the normalized wear metric is further determined based on a second life metric…”
Claims 9 and 16 recite the same issue as identified above for claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,373,111, hereinafter referred to as “Patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader recitation of those in the US Patent as demonstrated by the comparison below. In this manner, it may be considered that the claims of the US Patent may anticipate the claims of the instant application as they are of narrow scope.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,373,111
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory device, to perform operations comprising: determining a scaling factor based on a read error rate and a write error rate; determining a first normalized wear metric based on a first life metric and the scaling factor, wherein the first life metric reflects a physical wear of the memory device from performing a number of read operations and a number of write operations on the memory device; determining that a workload for the memory device is a read-intensive workload based on the first normalized wear metric; responsive to determining that the workload is the read-intensive workload, determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies a selection criterion, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device; and responsive to determining that the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion, providing an indication to replace the memory device.
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory device, to perform operations comprising: determining a plurality of different memory device life metrics, wherein a first life metric comprises a read count that specifies a first number of read operations performed on the memory device and a write count that specifies a second number of write operations performed on the memory device, wherein the first life metric reflects a physical wear of the memory device; determining, based on the first life metric, whether a workload of the memory device is a read-intensive workload; responsive to determining workload of the memory device is a read-intensive workload, determining a scaling factor for one or more of the plurality of different memory device life metrics, the scaling factor based on a first error rate and a second error rate, the first error rate corresponding to performing a particular number of read operations on the memory device and the second error rate corresponding to performing the particular number of write operations on the memory device; calculating a plurality of different normalized metric values of the memory device, wherein each of the different normalized metric values is based on a ratio of a different respective memory device life metric to a respective lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric, wherein a first normalized life metric comprises a normalized physical wear metric determined based on the first life metric and the scaling factor; determining based on the first normalized life metric that the workload is the read-intensive workload; determining, by comparing the first normalized metric value to each other different normalized metric values of the plurality of different normalized metric values, that the first normalized metric value satisfies a selection criterion, wherein a normalized metric value that satisfies the selection criterion is closest to the respective lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric, and wherein the normalized metric value corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device, determining, based on the first normalized metric value, an amount of remaining device life of the memory device; and responsive to determining the amount of remaining device life of the memory device, providing an indication of the amount of remaining device life to a host system, the indication of the amount of remaining device life comprising an indication to replace the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the normalized wear metric is further determined based n a second life metric which specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different memory device life metrics further comprise a second life metric comprising the write count and a third life metric comprising a bad memory unit count that specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the respective lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device according to the different respective device life metric.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion comprises: determining that the first normalized wear metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life than a second normalized wear metric.
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different normalized metric values comprises the first normalized metric value and a second normalized metric value, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining by comparing the first normalized metric value with the second normalized metric value, that the first normalized metric value satisfies the selection criterion, wherein the first normalized metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life of the memory device than the second normalized metric value.
The system of claim 1, wherein the scaling factor relates a read wear value for performing read operations with a write wear value for performing write operations, and wherein determining the first normalized wear metric comprises: determining, using the scaling factor, the number of read operations and the number of write operations, an access count metric, wherein the first normalized wear metric represents a ratio of the access count metric to a lifetime target access count value.
The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of different memory device life metrics comprise a second life metric comprising the write count and a third life metric comprising the read count, and wherein the operations further comprise: determining a fourth life metric of the plurality of different memory device life metrics, the fourth life metric comprising an access count based on the read count, the write count, and the scaling factor; calculating a second normalized life metric of the plurality of different normalized metric values based on the fourth life metric and a lifetime target access count value.
The system of claim 5, wherein determining the access count metric comprises: adding the number of write operations to a product of the number of read operations and the scaling factor.
The system of claim 5, wherein determining the access count comprises: adding the write count to a product of the read count and the scaling factor.
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a request for an indication of the amount of remaining device life, wherein determining the first normalized wear metric is in response to receiving the request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life.
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the host system, a request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life, wherein determining the plurality of different memory device life metrics is in response to receiving the request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life.
A method comprising: determining a scaling factor based on a read error rate and a write error rate; determining a first normalized wear metric based on a first life metric and the scaling factor, wherein the first life metric reflects a physical wear of a memory device from performing a number of read operations and a number of write operations on the memory device; determining that a workload for the memory device is a read-intensive workload based on the first normalized wear metric; responsive to determining that the workload is the read-intensive workload, determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies a selection criterion, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device; and responsive to determining that the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion, providing an indication to replace the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining whether the amount of remaining device life satisfies a threshold remaining life criterion; and responsive to determining that the amount of remaining device life satisfies the threshold remaining life criterion, sending, to the host system, a notification comprising the amount of remaining device life.
The method of claim 8, wherein the normalized wear metric is further determined based n a second life metric which specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
A method comprising: determining a first memory device life metric of one or more different memory device life metrics, wherein the first memory device life metric comprises an access count based on a number of read operations performed on the memory device, a number of write operations performed on the memory device, and a scaling factor that relates a first error rate corresponding to the number of read operations to a second error rate corresponding to the number of write operations; calculating a first normalized metric value of the memory device of one or more different normalized memory device life metrics corresponding each corresponding to a memory device life metric of the one or more different memory device life metrics, wherein the first normalized metric value is based on a ratio of a first memory device life metric to a first lifetime target value associated with the first memory device life metric; determining based on the first normalized metric value, that a workload of the memory device is a read-intensive workload; responsive to determining the workload is the read-intensive workload, determining whether the first normalized metric value is a greatest normalized metric value of the one or more different normalized memory device life metrics, wherein the first normalized metric value corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device; determining, based on the identified first normalized metric value, an amount of remaining device life of the memory device; and responsive to determining the amount of remaining device life of the memory device satisfies an end-of-life threshold, providing a first indication to a host system of the amount of remaining life for the memory device, and a second indication to replace the memory device.
The method of claim 8, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device.
The method of claim 9, wherein the access count is determined based on a sum of the write count and a scaled read count, wherein the scaled read count is determined based on a product of the read count and the scaling factor.
The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion comprises: determining that the first normalized wear metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life than a second normalized wear metric.
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more different memory device life metrics comprise a second memory device life metric comprising a bad memory unit count that specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
The method of claim 8, wherein the scaling factor relates a read wear value for performing read operations with a write wear value for performing write operations, and wherein determining the first normalized wear metric comprises: determining, using the scaling factor, the number of read operations and the number of write operations, an access count metric, wherein the first normalized wear metric represents a ratio of the access count metric to a lifetime target access count value.
The method of claim 9, wherein the first lifetime target value associated with the first memory device life metric corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device.
The method of claim 12, wherein determining the access count metric comprises: adding the number of write operations to a product of the number of read operations and the scaling factor.
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more different normalized memory device metrics comprise a second normalized metric value, the method further comprising: identifying, from the one or more different normalized memory device metrics, an identified memory device metric that satisfies a selection criterion, wherein the identified normalized metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life than each of the one or more different normalized memory device metrics.
The method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving a request for an indication of the amount of remaining device life, wherein determining the first normalized wear metric is in response to receiving the request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life.
The method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, from the host system, a request for an indication of the amount of remaining device life, wherein determining the first different memory device life metric is in response to receiving the request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life.
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: determining a scaling factor based on a read error rate and a write error rate; determining a first normalized wear metric based on a first life metric and the scaling factor, wherein the first life metric reflects a physical wear of a memory device from performing a number of read operations and a number of write operations on the memory device; determining that a workload for the memory device is a read-intensive workload based on the first normalized wear metric; responsive to determining that the workload is the read-intensive workload, determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies a selection criterion, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device; and responsive to determining that the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion, providing an indication to replace the memory device.
The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining whether the amount of remaining device life satisfies a threshold remaining life criterion; and responsive to determining that the amount of remaining device life satisfies the threshold remaining life criterion, sending, to the host system, a notification comprising the amount of remaining device life.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the normalized wear metric is further determined based n a second life metric which specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processing device to perform operations comprising: determining a plurality of different memory device life metrics, wherein a first metric comprises a read count that specifies a first number of read operations performed on a memory device and a write count metric that specifies a second number of write operations performed on the memory device; determining, based on the first life metric, whether a workload of the memory device is a read-intensive workload; responsive to determining the workload is the read-intensive workload, determining a second life metric of the plurality of different memory device life metrics, the second life metric comprising an error rate based on the read count, the write count, and a scaling factor that relates a first error rate corresponding to the read count metric to a second error rate corresponding to the write metric; calculating a plurality of different normalized metric values of the memory device, wherein each of the different normalized metric values is based on a ratio of a respective memory device life metric to a different respective lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric, and wherein the plurality of normalized metric values comprise a normalized error rate metric value corresponding to the second memory device life metric; identifying, by comparing each different normalized metric value of the plurality of different normalized metric values to other different normalized metric values of the plurality of different normalized metric values, an identified normalized metric value of the plurality of different normalized metric values that satisfies a selection criterion, wherein the normalized metric value that satisfies the selection criterion is closest to the respective lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric, wherein the identified normalized metric value corresponds to an amount of used device life of the memory device; determining, based on the identified normalized metric value, an amount of remaining device life of the memory device; and providing an indication of the amount of remaining device life to a host system, wherein the indication of the amount of remaining device life comprises an indication to replace the memory device.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the selection criterion corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the plurality of different memory device life metrics further comprise a third life metric comprising the write count, and a fourth life metric comprising a bad memory unit count that specifies a number of bad memory units identified on the memory device.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein determining whether the first normalized wear metric satisfies the selection criterion comprises: determining that the first normalized wear metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life than a second normalized wear metric.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the lifetime target value associated with the different respective memory device life metric corresponds to an end of an operational lifetime of the memory device according to the corresponding different device life metric.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the scaling factor relates a read wear value for performing read operations with a write wear value for performing write operations, and wherein determining the first normalized wear metric comprises: determining, using the scaling factor, the number of read operations and the number of write operations, an access count metric, wherein the first normalized wear metric represents a ratio of the access count metric to a lifetime target access count value.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the plurality of different normalized metric values comprises the identified normalized metric value and one or more second normalized metric values, and wherein identifying the normalized metric value that satisfies the selection criterion comprises: determining that the identified normalized metric value corresponds to a lesser amount of remaining life than each of the second normalized metric values.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 15, the operations further comprising: receiving a request for an indication of the amount of remaining device life, wherein determining the first normalized wear metric is in response to receiving the request for the indication of the amount of remaining device life.
The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the operations further comprise: determining an access count metric based on the read count, the write count, and the scaling factor that relates the read count to the write count for the memory device, wherein the different normalized metric values include a normalized access count value calculated based on a ratio of the access count metric to a lifetime target access count value.
Regarding claim 1, the claim of the instant application is substantially similar to that of Claim 1 of the Patent as noted by the unbolded portions of each claim in the table above. The bolded portions of claim 1 of the instant application and US Patent notes the differences and the US Patent thereby presenting a narrower scope establishes that the US Patent would otherwise anticipate the limitations of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 2 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 3 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 4 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 1 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 6 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 7 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 9 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 11 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 12 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 13 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 9 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 10 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 14 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 16 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 17 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 18 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 19 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 16 and claim 20 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 16 and 14 of the Patent. The method step limitations of claim 14 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be executable in the context of the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium as presented in claim 16 of the US Patent.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoang et al. (US 2017/0131948) – Paragraph [0041] wherein time-based workload logging for determining device lifecycle is discussed.
Tai et al. (US 2020/0065007) - Paragraphs [0028-30] wherein calculated wear metric based on read and write counts is discussed.
Dalmatov et al. (US 2021/0132822) - Paragraphs [0050-51] wherein metric-based reliability is discussed.
Kamran (US 2022/0121563) - Paragraphs [0023-29] wherein intensive workload identification is discussed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-3pm ET. The examiner’s email is alexander.yoon2@uspto.gov.
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, Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER YOON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2135
/JARED I RUTZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights