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 December 29, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11 and 15 are amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
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 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorobets et al. (U.S. 2020/0286562; hereinafter “Gorobets”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Gorobets discloses a memory device (Fig. 2A) comprising:
a memory array configured as a quad-level cell (QLC) memory (Fig. 2A: 208, see page 4, par. 0039); and
control logic (Fig. 2A: 201) operatively coupled to the memory array (Fig. 2A: 208), the control logic to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first two bits of particular pages of a QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0041);
causing memory cells of the memory array to be coarse programmed with a threshold voltage distribution of a multi-level cell (MLC) logical state corresponding to the first two bits (see page 4, par. 0041);
reading the MLC logical state from the memory cells (see page 4, par. 0043) and a second two bits from a cache buffer to determine the QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0045); and
causing the memory cells to be further coarse programmed with a QLC threshold voltage distribution corresponding to the QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0048).
As discussed above, Gorobets’s memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “ensuring that the threshold voltage distribution is programmed no higher than a fifth threshold voltage distribution of possible QLC logical states.”
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). Gorobets’s memory 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, Gorobets discloses wherein the operations further comprise storing, in the cache buffer, only the second two bits of four bits of the QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0045).
Regarding claim 4, Gorobets discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Gorobets’s memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “forcing an upper tail of a highest of possible MLC threshold voltage distribution is programmed no higher than an upper tail of the fifth threshold voltage distribution of the possible QLC logical states.”
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). Gorobets’s memory 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, Gorobets discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Gorobets’s memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “causing a read voltage level for each of a highest three possible threshold voltage distributions for the MLC logical state to be evenly spaced within a threshold percentage.”
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). Gorobets’s memory 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, Gorobets discloses the limitations with respect to claim 5.
As discussed above, Gorobets’s memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “a first width between each of the read voltage levels of the highest three possible threshold voltage distributions is at least twice as wide as a second width between each read voltage level of corresponding QLC logical states.”
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). Gorobets’s memory 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, Gorobets discloses wherein the particular pages of the QLC logical state comprise at least one of an extra page or a lower page (see page 2, par. 0026).
Regarding independent claim 15, Gorobets discloses a computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions (Fig. 5), which when executed by a processing device (Fig. 5: 501) of a memory sub-system, causes the processing device to perform operations comprising:
identifying a first two bits of particular pages of a quad-level cell (QLC) logical state (see page 4, par. 0041);
causing memory cells programmed as QLC memory to be coarse programmed with a threshold voltage distribution of a multi-level cell (MLC) logical state corresponding to the first two bits (see page 4, par. 0041);
reading the MLC logical state from the memory cells (see page 4, par. 0043) and a second two bits from a cache buffer to determine the QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0045); and
causing the memory cells to be further coarse programmed with a QLC threshold voltage distribution corresponding to the QLC logical (see page 4, par. 0048).
As discussed above, Gorobets’s computer-readable storage medium is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “computer-readable storage medium,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “ensuring that the threshold voltage distribution is programmed no higher than a fifth threshold voltage distribution of possible QLC logical states.”
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). Gorobets’s 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 claim 16, Gorobets discloses wherein the operations further comprise storing, in the cache buffer, only the second two bits of four bits of the QLC logical state (see page 4, par. 0045).
Regarding claim 18, Gorobets discloses the limitations with respect to claim 15.
As discussed above, Gorobets’s computer-readable storage medium is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “computer-readable storage medium,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “causing a read voltage level for each of a highest three possible threshold voltage distributions for the MLC logical state to be evenly spaced within a threshold percentage.”
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). Gorobets’s 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 claim 19, Gorobets discloses the limitations with respect to claim 18.
As discussed above, Gorobets’s computer-readable storage medium is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “computer-readable storage medium,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “first width between each of the read voltage levels of the highest three possible threshold voltage distributions is at least twice as wide as a second width between each read voltage level of corresponding QLC logical states.”
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). Gorobets’s 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 claim 20, Gorobets discloses wherein the particular pages of the QLC logical state comprise at least one of an extra page or a lower page (see page 2, par. 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 11-14 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 step of ensuring that the threshold voltage distribution is programmed no higher than a fifth threshold voltage distribution of possible QLC logical states, 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 and 15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to independent apparatus claims 1 and 15, Applicant asserts that Gorobets discloses different functionality that are incompatible and fundamentally different from “ensuring that the threshold voltage distribution is programmed no higher than a fifth threshold voltage distribution of possible QLC logical states,” as recited by amended claims 1 and 15. Also, Applicants asserts that the Examiner’s inherency analysis is improper because firmware/software operation performed by the control logic are not inherent structural properties of the apparatus, see Applicant’s Remarks pages 7-9. These particular remarks are not considered persuasive.
MPEP 2112.01(I)’s heading stated applicability not only to properties but also to functional claim language in an apparatus claim. The rejection follows the procedures in the MPEP and the rejection’s presumption of inherency is not conclusive, but is rebuttable by showing the prior art apparatus and claimed apparatus are not “substantially identical” or by proving the prior art apparatus is not capable of performing the functions. Applicant is reminded that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art, see MPEP 2114(II). Applicant fails to show that the prior art device and claimed device are not the same and/or fails to prove that the prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions.
For the above reasons, the previously applied rejection is 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