CustnerNo.000040672
`
`Attorney Docket No. GRTD60-34138
`
`REMARKS
`
`Applicant has carefully reviewed the Office Action dated January 24, 2019.
`
`Applicant has amended Claims 1-8 and added new Claims 10-21 to more clearly point
`
`out the present inventive concept. No new matter has been added. Reconsideration
`
`and favorable action are respectfully requested.
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to add the limitation wherein the controller is
`
`operable to perform a data integrity check after an access operation and, upon a failure
`
`of the data integrity check, remap the physical memory address space. Support for this
`
`can be found at paragraphs [0014], [0021], [0024], and [0025]. This remapping is for
`
`the purpose of endurance and, as such, after remapping, endurance will be increased.
`
`Further, new claims 10 — 21 further define this remapping as remapping from the MLC
`
`to the SLC, wherein the SLC is a higher endurance memory.
`
`Claims 1 — 4 and 7 — 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
`
`over the combination of Gorobets in view of Goodson. This rejection is respectfully
`
`traversed with respect to the claims as currently presented.
`
`The Gorobets reference does not disclose or suggest a remapping operation
`
`wherein the remapping operation is for the purpose of
`
`improving the endurance.
`
`Rather, all that the Gorobets reference does is remap for wearability in accordance with
`
`a wearability algorithm. There is no integrity check that is performed for this operation.
`
`Further, there is no indication that the remapping of the physical address space will be
`
`from a memory element having a relatively lower endurance to another memory
`
`element having a relatively higher endurance. The Goodson reference does not cure
`
`this deficiency. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C.
`
`§103 rejection with respect to Claims 1 — 4 and 7 — 9.
`
`Claim 5 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) in view of the additional
`
`reference Kund and Claim 6 has been rejected in view of the additional reference Chen.
`
`Claims 5 and 6 depend from Claim 1
`
`and,
`
`therefore,
`
`for
`
`the reasons stated
`
`hereinabove, are believed to be allowable for the reasons described with respect
`
`hereinabove to Claim 1 and, therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 rejection with respect to Claims 5 and 6.
`
`Amendment — Page 6 of 7
`
`

`

`Customer No. 000040672
`
`Attorney Docket No. GRTD60-34138
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Applicant has now made an earnest attempt
`
`in order to place this case in
`
`condition for allowance. For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`full allowance of the claims as amended.
`
`If any issues arise, or
`
`if
`
`the Examiner has any suggestions for expediting
`
`allowance of this Application, the Applicant respectfully invites the Examiner to contact
`
`the undersigned at the telephone number indicated below or at patents@naifeh.com.
`
`Recognizing that
`
`Internet communications are not secure, Applicant hereby
`
`authorizes the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in
`
`accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this
`
`application by video conferencing,
`
`instant messaging, or electronic mail. Applicant
`
`understands that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the
`
`application file.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Bill R. Naifeh, Reg No. 44,962/
`
`Bill R. Naifeh
`
`Registration No. 44,962
`
`Acting in a Representative Capacity
`under 37 CFR 1.34
`
`Bill R. Naifeh
`
`Law Office of Bill Naifeh
`
`15303 Dallas Parkway
`Suite 700
`
`Addison, TX 75001
`972-726-9500
`
`214-550-2542 (fax)
`
`Amendment — Page 7 of 7
`
`