DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449. The information disclosed therein was considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group II (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 1/27/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement lacks burden. This is not found persuasive because search scope is determined more that by the specific language at the time of filing and because the similarity between cherry-picked clauses of the relative groupings is not evidence of lack of burden. Applicant is reminded that if the allowable features of the elected group are present in the withdrawn group, the Examiner is likely to rejoin and therefore it is suggested Applicant amend the withdrawn claims in similar fashion to the elected claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muchherla (US 2019/0243704) in view of Brox (US 2005/0052913).
Regarding claim 11 and 16, Muchherla discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory sub-system including a memory device and a controller, the controller including a stable state error-handling bin selection component configured to: detect a change in a memory control signal (see Figure 7, 720) of the memory device; determine a quantity of time associated with the change in the memory control signal has passed; determine based the comparison that the memory device is in a stable state (see paragraph 0047); and responsive to determining that the memory device is in the stable state, associate a voltage offset bin with at least one memory block of the memory device (see paragraph 0047).
Muchherla fails to teach that the quantity of time elapsed determination is made by comparing the counts on a counter to the number of a data structure. However, this was a known technique at the time of filing for making such a determination. For example, Brox (see paragraph 0075) teaches a counter the value of which is compared to a data structure to determine the passing of a time period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide such a counter and comparison to determine the elapsed dime of Muchherla since that was a known technique at the time of filing and would yield the predictable result of determining the passing time.
Regarding claim 12 and 17, Muchherla discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the stable state error-handling bin selection component is further configured to associate the voltage offset bin with the at least one memory block of the memory device subsequent to a power-up event and prior to performing any host initiated memory operations involving the memory device (see paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 13, Muchherla discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the stable state error-handling bin selection component is further to determine that the memory device is in the stable state and associate the voltage offset bin with the at least one memory block of the memory device in the absence of a dummy read involving the memory device (performed for programming, so absent a dummy read operation).
Regarding claim 14, Muchherla discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the stable state error-handling bin selection component is further to associate the voltage offset bin with the at least one memory block of the memory device in the absence of the dummy read (performed for programming, so absent a dummy read operation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including wherein the voltage offset bin associated with at least one memory block of the memory device in the stable state is the same as a voltage offset bin that is associated with the at least one block of the memory device when the memory device is in a transient state.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including a look-up table storing a plurality of count values and corresponding operational states of the memory device, wherein the corresponding operational states include the stable state and a transient state.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The remaining cited and attached references teach various embodiments of voltage offset and operational counter configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached on 571-272-1869. 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.
/DOUGLAS KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824