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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are method claims that recite conditional claim language. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, if a method step relies on a condition precedent that is not met, the conditional steps that follow are not required to be performed. Taken as an example, in claim 1, the method recites “when an error occurs in a target operation … obtaining an execution count”. However, if an error does not occur, an execution count is not obtained, and none of the following steps are executed. Conditional steps that are skipped when a primary condition fails are given no patentable weight in an anticipation or obviousness analysis. Therefore, for claim 1, prior art would only be required to teach the preamble of the claim in order to anticipate claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 7-9 suffer from similar conditional claim limitations. Additional information will be discussed in the prior art rejections of the claim below. See MPEP 2111.04.
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 1 and 11 recites the limitation "the first second, third or fourth type", “the first preset condition” and “the second preset condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 12 recite the limitation "execution count" twice to represent two different definitions. The execution count is defined as both a read count and an erase count. It is unclear how a singular execution count can represent both a read count and an erase count.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-7, 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s) determining whether a first physical unit is a third type, determining whether a first physical unit is a second type or marking a first physical unit as a second type based on satisfying preset conditions or not.
These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III)) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a rewritable non-volatile memory module comprising physical units, recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The claim additionally cites obtaining an execution count when an error occurs. This is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, these additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 recites what the first and second preset conditions comprise, and is considered extra-solution activity and does not include additional element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites an additional determining step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. observing a temperature or voltage is abnormal). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 4 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. not determining a physical unit type if a preset condition is not met). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 5 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. determining if a physical block is a fourth or third type). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 6 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. determining if a physical block is a fourth or third type). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 7 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. determining if a physical block is a third type). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 9 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. determining if a physical block is a fourth or third type). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claim 10 recites an additional mental step that covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. determining if a physical block is a first type). That is, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being performed in the mind.
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 recite similar claim limitations to those of claims 1-7 and 9-10 and are rejected using the same interpretations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2021/0405888) in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0145079) and further in view of Jei et al. (US 2017/0177425).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a memory control method, used for a rewritable non-volatile memory module, wherein the rewritable non-volatile memory module comprises a plurality of physical units, and the plurality of physical units are respectively marked as the first, second, third, or fourth type, the memory control method comprising:
when an error occurs in a target operation executed on a first physical unit, determining whether the first physical unit is the second type [see paragraphs 48-50; determining that an error has occurred, block is marked as a bad block (second type)].
Park does not expressly disclose obtaining an execution count, and if the first physical unit is not the third type and the execution count indicates that the first physical unit satisfies the second preset condition
Jei discloses a memory block classification system comprising 4 types of blocks [see Fig. 6 & paragraphs 80-83; blocks may be a normal block, weak block, read reclaim block, or uncorrectable block]. The classification system classifies blocks as types utilizing a first preset condition, including comparing a read count against a threshold [see paragraph 63].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the read count preset condition of Jei in the classification system of Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the likelihood of a read fail [see Jei, paragraph 5].
The combination of Park and Jei does not expressly disclose determining whether the first physical unit is the third type; and if the first physical unit is not the second type, marking the first physical unit as the third type.
Lee discloses a memory block classification system in which a second preset condition may be used to classify blocks into wear level grades based on at least two wearout parameters, including a erase amount threshold [see paragraphs 27 & 31].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the second erase count based preset condition of Lee in the classification system of Park and Jei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the lifetime of a flash storage device [see Lee, paragraph 5].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Jei and Lee for the benefits listed above, to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1-20.
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, wherein the first preset condition comprises:
the target operation is not a read operation, or the target operation is the read operation and the execution count does not exceed a read threshold, wherein the execution count is a read count [see Jei, paragraph 63; read count used to classify block type]; and
wherein the second preset condition comprises:
the execution count does not exceed an erase threshold, wherein the execution count is an erase count [see Lee, paragraph 27; erase count used to classify data blocks].
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, wherein before the step of obtaining the execution count of the first physical unit, the memory control method further comprises:
determining whether an operation temperature or an operation voltage corresponding to the target operation is abnormal; and if at least one of the operation temperature and the operation voltage is abnormal, temporarily not marking the first physical unit [see Lee, paragraph 50; temperature information used to determine block type classification].
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, further comprising:
if the execution count and the operation type of the target operation indicate that the first
physical unit does not satisfy the first preset condition, temporarily not marking the first physical unit [see Park, paragraphs 48-50; if read count is not exceeded, block type remains a normal block].
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, further comprising:
if the first physical unit is the third type, marking the first physical unit as the fourth type [see Jei, paragraph 83; block classified as uncorrectable (fourth type of block)];
if the first physical unit is not the third type and the execution count indicates that the first physical unit does not satisfy the second preset condition, marking the first physical unit as the third type [see Jei, paragraph 83; block classified as read reclaim (third type of block)].
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 5, wherein the step of marking the first physical unit as the third type comprises:
determining whether the target operation is a read operation; if yes, marking the first physical unit as the third type; if no, marking the first physical unit as the fourth type [see Jei, paragraph 63; if read command causes read count to exceed the threshold, block is classified as the second type].
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, further comprising:
if the first physical unit is the second type, marking the first physical unit as the third type [see Jei, paragraphs80-83; a weak block (second type, may be reclassified to a read retry type (third type)].
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in an idle state, based on an access mode of the first physical unit marked as the second type, executing a target test operation on the first physical unit marked as the second type; and if the target test operation successes, re-marking the first physical unit marked as the second type as the first type [see Park, paragraph 112; memory block undergoes as test operation to determine if the block type should be switched].
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 8, further comprising:
if the target test operation fails and the access mode is a single level cell storage unit access mode, marking the first physical unit marked as the second type as the fourth type; and if the target test operation fails and the access mode is not a single level cell storage unit access mode, marking the first physical unit marked as the second type as the third type [see Park, paragraph 112; memory block undergoes as test operation to determine if the block type should be switched].
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses the memory control method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of physical units are all the first type at an initial stage; and wherein the first physical unit marked as the third type is only used for a single level cell storage unit access mode [see Jei, paragraph 165; weak block may be designated as SLC use].
Claims 11-20 recite similar claim limitations to those of claims 1-10 and are rejected using the same citations and interpretations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoo (US 2026/0037430), Tomic (US 2020/0393972) – Generally teaches classifying memory blocks into wear levels based a number of P/E cycles counted.
Shin (US 2017/0277476) – Generally teaches classifying data segments into first, second, third or fourth types based on a read count.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN BERTRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1377. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5MNT.
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, Arpan Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/RYAN BERTRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights