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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is responding to the arguments filed on 06/16/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-15, 17-20 and 22-23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added limitation in the amended claims 1,17,18 “wherein responsive to the passed read retry conditions being divided into the first passed read retry condition and one or more first remaining passed read retry conditions, a first success count of the first passed read retry condition to read out the first page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each first remaining passed read retry condition to read out the first page in the historical read retry operations” and also “wherein responsive to the passed read retry conditions being divided into the second passed read retry condition and one or more second remaining passed read retry conditions, a second success count of the second passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each second remaining passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations” does not have sufficient support in the specification. The specification discloses memory controller may determine a sub-optimal read retry condition from the passed read retry conditions where sub-optimal read retry condition may include a passed read retry condition having a second highest success count to read out the corresponding page in the historical passed read retry operations in paragraph [0134] for Fig 10A, it also discloses reading results of the three middle-page reads indicate that the Vth of the memory cell is greater than Vrd2 in [0094] but does not disclose read retry conditions being divided into the first passed read retry condition and one or more first remaining passed read retry conditions and read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each second remaining passed read retry condition. Claim 1, 17 and 18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre- AIA ), first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, 19-20 and 22-23 are rejected based on their dependency on rejected claims 1, 17 and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 17 and 18 would be allowable if the 112(a) rejection set forth above is
overcome.
Examiner has conducted update search and given considerations to applicants
arguments and/or requests. The prior art does not teach “wherein responsive to the passed read retry conditions being divided into the first passed read retry condition and one or more first remaining passed read retry conditions, a first success count of the first passed read retry condition to read out the first page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each first remaining passed read retry condition to read out the first page in the historical read retry operations” and also “wherein responsive to the passed read retry conditions being divided into the second passed read retry condition and one or more second remaining passed read retry conditions, a second success count of the second passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each second remaining passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations” - limitations of claim 1, 17 and 18.
ASADI et al. (US 20220091953 A1) does teach read threshold optimizer 530 may determine possible read condition from two read conditions that approximate state of memory device, select from read level table in Fig 8A based on historical read threshold and read retry threshold where 2 read conditions can be combined for an interpolated read level, but does not teach read retry conditions being divided into the second passed read retry condition and one or more second remaining passed read retry conditions.
HUANG et al. (TW 202546623 A) does teach memory controller can use the read voltage value or read retry condition with highest read success for first page read and can use the read voltage value or read retry condition with second highest read success for second page read but does not teach a second success count of the second passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations is greater than a respective success count of each second remaining passed read retry condition to read out the second page in the historical read retry operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the rejection set forth in the 03/23/26 office
action. Since then, applicants have amended claims 1, 17 and 18. However, in the
current action, Claim(s) 1, 17 and 18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1, 17 and 18 would
be allowed if the 35 USC 112(a) rejection is overcome.
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 SUBIR K CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (703)756-1207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 CST.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)-272-3978. 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.
/S.K.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights