DETAILED ACTION
The RCE filed July 29, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “unwritten to wordline”. There is not disclosure of these limitations from the specification. So these languages constitute new matter.
Further, regarding amended claims 1, 8 and 15, the applicant is reminded that when amending claims or adding new claims, applicant must show support in the originally filed disclosure. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). See also 2163.04; and 714.02(-03, 714-08) and 2163.06.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected base independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2013/0229868) in view of Park et al. (US 2023/0142279).
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as best as can be understood, Koh et al. teach a system comprising:
a memory device (see FIG. 1); and
a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory device, to perform operations comprising:
performing a write operation (e.g., Abstract: the data from a previously written) to program first data to a first set of memory cells addressable by a first wordline of a first plurality of wordlines of a block of the memory device;
performing a read operation (… adjacent is word line is read back) on a second wordline of the plurality of wordlines, wherein the second wordline is a sequentially next and unwritten to word line in the block (Abstract: Before writing a word line, the data from a previously written adjacent is word line is read back…, i.e., a previously written adjacent can be interpreted as claimed “a sequentially next available”; and see claimed “in the block” in FIG. 1: 200) and is adjacent to the first wordline;
determining (… If a short occurs, …) a number of bits programmed in a first logical level in the second wordline (… both word lines); and
responsive to determining that the number of bits programmed in the first logical level fails to satisfy a threshold criterion (… If a short occurs, …), performing a write operation on the second wordline to program second data (… it (i.e., both word lines) can be written to a new location; also see para. 0162).
Further, reprogramming a defected (claimed fail to satisfy a threshold criterion) word line due to interference with adjacent word lines is a well-known technology in a memory device.
For support, see for example, Hsu et al. (US 2017/0322843), para. [0004]: For example, if the failure is due to a short between word lines … both the word line being programmed …; and Kleveland et al. (US 7,212,454), Abstract: The word lines are then reprogrammed and … a defect on that word line and a previously-programmed adjacent word line. If a defect is detected on that word line, that word line and the previously-programmed adjacent word line are repaired …
Koh et al. are silent with respect to unwritten to word line.
Park et al. teach the deficiencies in e.g., para. 0047: the flash memory device 1100 according to an embodiment … determine whether the next word line is … the unprogrammed word line, …, and may perform the data recover read operation.
Koh and Park are analogous art because they both are directed to flash memory device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koh with the specified features of Park because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of Park et al. to the teaching of Koh et al. such that a memory, as taught by Koh et al., utilizes read operations on unprogrammed word line, as taught by Park et al., for the purpose of possibly compensating for threshold voltages of memory cell connected with the selected word line (see Park, paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach retiring the block from further use by the memory device (see e.g., para. 0096: … then remove it from … usable blocks).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach performing another write operation to program the first data to a third block (para. 0162: the other block, which implies a third block in multi-block structure).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach the first set of memory cells comprises each memory cell associated with the first wordline (see FIGS. 1 and 4, and accompanying disclosure).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach the first set of memory cells comprises a predetermined subset of memory cells associated with the first wordline (e.g., para. 0069: … the subset of cells … the entire row …).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach the processing device to perform further operations comprising: the threshold criterion comprises a threshold value of set bits (see e.g., para. 0062-0063).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Koh et al. and Park et al., as combined, teach the limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
Koh et al. further teach determining a count of memory cells programmed in a second logical level in the second wordline (see e.g., para. 0116: … using the total program loop count to judge this failure could result in false alarms).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The documents below were considered.
Hsu et al. (US 2017/0322843),
Kleveland et al. (US 7,212,454),
Karr et al. (US 2020/0082890), and
Shappir et al. (US 2020/0005874)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s RCE filed 07/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102 and 103, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the examiner maintains the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG IL CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0137. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:30AM-5PM; Every other F, 7:30AM-4PM 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.
/SUNG IL CHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights