DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed January 28, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 16 are independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 received on February 23, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seol et al. (U.S. 9,734,898; hereinafter “Seol”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Seol discloses a storage device (Fig. 1: 1001), comprising:
a nonvolatile memory device (Fig. 1: 1100) comprising a plurality of first memory cells coupled to a first wordline (Fig. 4: 1111) and a plurality of second memory cells coupled to a second wordline (Fig. 4: 1112), the first wordline and the second wordline being adjacent to each other (Fig. 4: 1111 is adjacent to 1112), and
a storage controller (Fig. 1: 1200) configured to control the nonvolatile memory device (Fig. 1: 1100).
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “encode data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells, based on a program state of each of the plurality of first memory cells, the program state comprising a first state and a second state, and encode the data to be programmed into the second wordline such that a first portion of the data to be written into a first portion of the plurality of second memory cells satisfies a first condition, and a second portion of the data to be written into a second portion of the plurality of second memory cells satisfies a second condition, the first portion of the plurality of second memory cells being adjacent to a first portion of the plurality of first memory cells in the first state, and the second portion of the plurality of second memory cells adjacent to a second portion of the plurality of first memory cells in the second state.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 2, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the first condition is configured to allow the first portion of the data, programmed into the first portion of the plurality of second memory cells adjacent to the first portion of the plurality of first memory cells in the first state, to have a first program pattern other than a first shaping target pattern, and wherein the second condition is configured to allow the second portion of the data, programmed into the second portion of the plurality of second memory cells adjacent to the second portion of the plurality of first memory cells in the second state, to have a second program pattern other than a second shaping target pattern.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 3, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 2.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “select a codeword, from among a plurality of codewords, corresponding to data that maximizes satisfying at least one of the first condition and the second condition, from among data generated by applying the plurality of codewords to the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells; encode, based on the selected codeword, the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells; and output the encoded data as an encoding result value.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 4, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 2.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells comprises a plurality of pieces of logical page data, and wherein the storage controller is further configured to perform temporary encoding on the plurality of pieces of logical page data; select a codeword satisfying at least one of the first condition and the second condition set for each of the plurality of pieces of logical page data being temporarily encoded; and apply a corresponding codeword to each of the plurality of pieces of logical page data to generate an encoding result value for each of the plurality of pieces of logical page data.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 5, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 4.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “generate shaping location information based on the program state of each of the plurality of first memory cells; update the shaping location information based on data generated by encoding (n-1)-th logical page data and at least one of the first condition and the second condition being satisfied by the encoded (n-1)-th logical page data, n being a positive integer greater than zero; and perform an encoding operation on n-th logical page data based on the updated shaping location information.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 6, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 5.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the shaping location information comprises first location information of the plurality of second memory cells needed to satisfy the first condition, and second location information of the plurality of second memory cells needed to satisfy the second condition.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 7, Seol discloses the limitation with respect to claim 6.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “update the shaping location information by excluding location information of a second memory cell satisfying at least one of the first condition the second condition for the (n-1)-th logical page data; select a codeword that maximizes satisfying at least one of the first condition and the second condition for data of a location of a second memory cell indicated by the updated shaping location information, as a codeword for the n-th logical page data; and output encoding data, obtained by applying the selected codeword to temporarily encoded n-th logical page data, as an encoding result value for the n-th logical page data.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Seol’s storage device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 8, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited encoding of the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells comprises encoding the data to be programmed into the second wordline such that the first portion of the data to be written into a first portion of the plurality of second memory cells satisfies a first condition, and a second portion of the data to be written into a second portion of the plurality of second memory cells satisfies a second condition, in combination with the other limitations.
With respect to independent claim 16, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited encoding of the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells comprises encoding the data to be programmed into the plurality of second memory cells such that a first portion of the data to be written into a first portion of the plurality of second memory cells adjacent to first memory cells in a first state, from among the plurality of states, satisfies a first condition, and a second portion of the data to be written into a second portion of the plurality of second memory cells adjacent to first memory cells in a second state, from among the plurality of states, satisfies a second condition, in combination with the other limitations.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant asserts that the functionality of a memory controller is not inherent to its structure or its composition, but is determined by its configuration (e.g., algorithm, program, instructions, and/or code) and once the memory controller is configured to perform a particular function, the memory controller becomes in effect a special purpose controller pursuant to the configured functionality. Therefore, apparatus claim 1 covers a storage device that encodes data and not a generic storage dives that is used to encode data, and thus, is not identical to Seol, see Applicant’s Remarks page 17. This particular remark is not considered persuasive.
The claimed “storage device” and “storage controller” are only limited in terms of what they do, as opposed to what they are, and persons skilled in the art would be unable to immediately envisage the product arising from the method of operation steps recited in the storage device claims. The term “storage controller” is not a term that invokes 112(f). There is no indication in the originally filed disclosure as to what the “storage controller” is because it is only claimed and described in terms of what is does. The configuration of the “storage controller” (e.g., algorithm, program, instructions, and/or code) is not specific and do not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art. MPEP 2114(II) recited (“Manner of operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Applicant, also asserts that the Examiner has not provided any evidence as to the configuration of the storage device of Seol being substantially identical to the configuration of the claimed “storage device,” see Applicant’s Remarks page 18. This particular remark is not considered persuasive.
MPEP 2182 states “If the prior art references teaches the identical structure or acts but is silent about performing the claimed function, a reasonable presumption is that the prior art structure inherently performs the same function.” MPEP 2112.01(I) states, “When the structure recites in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or function are presumed to be inherent.” The rejection above makes clear the necessary rational and evidence by pointing to Seol figures, which show the identical apparatus as applicant shows in their figures. The identity of the subject matter of these figures satisfied the sufficient rational as authorized under MPEP 2182 and 2112.01(I), and the burden was properly shifted to applicant to either demonstrates the devices are not the same or prove with evidence the prior art device cannot perform the functions.
Furthermore, Applicant asserts that Seol does not anticipate Applicant’s claims because Seol fail to show the identical invention as complete detail as is contained in the claim, see Applicant’s Remarks page 18. This particular remark is not considered persuasive.
As discussed above, Seol’s storage device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “storage device.” MPEP 2112.01(I) explains that the examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus.
Finally, Applicant asserts that the rejections of claims 1-7 appear to contradict another portion of the Office Action, because claim 1 recites similar features of independent claims 8 and 16 which are indicated as being allowable by the Office Action, see Applicant’s Remarks pages 18-19. This particular remark is not considered persuasive.
Apparatus claims 1-7 only recite old structure and use functional language at the point of novelty. Claims 8 and 16 disclosed a new method of operating an old device. MPEP 2112.02(II) explains that for process of use claims, new and nonobvious uses of old structure and compositions be patentable.
For the above reasons, the previously applied rejections are considered proper and maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFREDO BERMUDEZ LOZADA whose telephone number is (571)272-0877. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM EST.
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, Alexander G Sofocleous can be reached at 571-272-0635. 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.
/Alfredo Bermudez Lozada/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights