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 February 13, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 After Final Rejection
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 7-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umezawa et al. (U.S. 2018/0082751; hereinafter “Umezawa”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Umezawa discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a memory device (Fig. 1: 1) comprising a plurality of memory cells (Fig. 2: MCs); and
a processing device (Fig. 1: 201-208) operatively coupled with the memory device (Fig. 1: 1), to perform operations comprising:
grouping the plurality of memory cells into a plurality of groups (“B0” and “B1”, see pages 2-3, par. 0036) based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of a metric reflecting an electrical distance of a memory cell from a voltage source (see pages 2-3, par. 0036 and page 6, par. 0102-0103);
determining, for each group of the plurality of groups, a respective share of write operations, wherein the share of write operations is related to an aggregate value of the metric for memory cells of the group (see page 6, par. 0103-0109), wherein the respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups according to a set of defined ratios (For example: Umezawa describe in page 6, par. 0103-0109 a writing operation in the group G0 and a writing operation in the group G1, that is an amount of 2 writing operations that are distributed to an individual group, i.e. “respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups.” Furthermore, these writing operations are set according to a relationship in quantity or size of the distance between the row control circuit and the groups where the selected word line is located, i.e. “a defined ratio”); and
distributing the write operations to each group of the plurality of groups according to the share of write operations determined for the group (see pages 6-7, par. 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 2, Umezawa discloses wherein the share of write operations is inversely proportional to the aggregate value of the metric for the memory cells of the group (see page 7, par. 0123).
Regarding claim 3, Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a rate of threshold voltage shift of each memory cell (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
Regarding claim 4¸ Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of the metric (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
Regarding claim 7, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Umezawa’s system is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “system,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a number of times an error correction code is triggered for a set of memory cells in the at least one group of the plurality of groups.”
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). Umezawa’s system 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 independent claim 8, Umezawa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Fig. 1) that, when executed by a processing device (Fig. 1: 201-208), cause the processing device to perform operations comprising comprising:
grouping a plurality of memory cells (Fig. 2: MCs) of a memory device (Fig. 1: 1) into a plurality of groups (“B0” and “B1”, see pages 2-3, par. 0036) based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of a metric reflecting an electrical distance of a memory cell from a voltage source (see pages 2-3, par. 0036 and page 6, par. 0102-0103);
determining, for each group of the plurality of groups, a respective share of write operations, wherein the share of write operations is related to an aggregate value of the metric for memory cells of the group (see page 6, par. 0103-0109), wherein the respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups according to a set of defined ratios (For example: Umezawa describe in page 6, par. 0103-0109 a writing operation in the group G0 and a writing operation in the group G1, that is an amount of 2 writing operations that are distributed to an individual group, i.e. “respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups.” Furthermore, these writing operations are set according to a relationship in quantity or size of the distance between the row control circuit and the groups where the selected word line is located, i.e. “a defined ratio”); and
distributing the write operations to each group of the plurality of groups according to the share of write operations determined for the group (see pages 6-7, par. 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 9, Umezawa discloses wherein the share of write operations is inversely proportional to the aggregate value of the metric for the memory cells of the group (see page 7, par. 0123).
Regarding claim 10, Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a rate of threshold voltage shift of each memory cell (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
Regarding claim 11¸ Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of the metric (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
Regarding claim 14, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 8.
As discussed above, Umezawa’s non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a number of times an error correction code is triggered for a set of memory cells in the at least one group of the plurality of groups.”
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). Umezawa’s non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 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 independent claim 15, Umezawa discloses a method comprising:
grouping, by a processing device (Fig. 1: 201-208), a plurality of memory cells (Fig. 2: MCs) of a memory device (Fig. 1: 1) into a plurality of groups (“B0” and “B1”, see pages 2-3, par. 0036) based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of a metric reflecting an electrical distance of a memory cell from a voltage source (see pages 2-3, par. 0036 and page 6, par. 0102-0103);
determining, for each group of the plurality of groups, a respective share of write operations, wherein the share of write operations is related to an aggregate value of the metric for memory cells of the group (see page 6, par. 0103-0109), wherein the respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups according to a set of defined ratios (For example: Umezawa describe in page 6, par. 0103-0109 a writing operation in the group G0 and a writing operation in the group G1, that is an amount of 2 writing operations that are distributed to an individual group, i.e. “respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups.” Furthermore, these writing operations are set according to a relationship in quantity or size of the distance between the row control circuit and the groups where the selected word line is located, i.e. “a defined ratio”); and
distributing the write operations to each group of the plurality of groups according to the share of write operations determined for the group (see pages 6-7, par. 0110-0111).
Regarding claim 16, Umezawa discloses wherein the share of write operations is inversely proportional to the aggregate value of the metric for the memory cells of the group (see page 7, par. 0123).
Regarding claim 17, Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a rate of threshold voltage shift of each memory cell (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
Regarding claim 18¸ Umezawa discloses wherein grouping the plurality of memory cells into the plurality of groups is based on a number of memory cells associated with a particular value of the metric (see pages 7-8, par. 0126 and 0130).
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umezawa et al. (U.S. 2018/0082751; hereinafter “Umezawa”) in view of Fugazza et al. (U.S. 2022/0180934; hereinafter “Fugazza”).
Regarding claim 5, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device.
Similar to Umezawa, Fugazza teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising a memory device comprising a plurality of memory cells (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Regarding claim 6, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device.
Similar to Umezawa, Fugazza teaches a system (Fig. 1) comprising a memory device comprising a plurality of memory cells (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Regarding claim 12, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 8.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device.
Similar to Umezawa, Fugazza teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 1) comprising a memory device comprising a plurality of memory cells (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Regarding claim 13, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 8.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device.
Similar to Umezawa, Fugazza teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 1) comprising a memory device comprising a plurality of memory cells (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Regarding claim 19, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 15.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device.
Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a temperature of the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Regarding claim 20, Umezawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 15.
However, Umezawa is silent with respect to determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device.
Fugazza teaches determining, for at least one group of the plurality of groups, the respective share of write operations based on a total number of write operations performed on the memory device (see page 9, par. 0083).
Since Fugazza and Umezawa are from the same field of endeavor, the teachings described by Fugazza would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Umezawa.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fugazza with the teachings of Umezawa for the purpose of improve the size of the read window budget, see Fugazza’s page 9, par. 0083.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, Applicant asserts that Umezawa fails to disclose the quantity or share of write operations distributed to each group as recited in the amended claims 1, 8 and 15, “the respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups according to a proportional ratio between the groups,” see Applicant’s Remarks page 8. This particular remark is not considered persuasive.
As recited in the rejection above, Umezawa describe in page 6, par. 0103-0109 a writing operation in the group G0 and a writing operation in the group G1, that is an amount of 2 writing operations that are distributed to an individual group, i.e. “respective shares of write operations are assigned to the plurality of groups.” Furthermore, these writing operations are set according to a relationship in quantity or size of the distance between the row control circuit and the groups where the selected word line is located, i.e. “a defined ratio,” the rejections of claims 1, 8 and 15 have been augmented to address the recent amendment.
For the above reasons, the previously applied rejection is considered proper and maintained.
Conclusion
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