Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/785,479

CORRECTIVE PROGRAM CONVERGENCE ASSOCIATED WITH MEMORY CELLS OF A MEMORY SUB-SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
REECE, CHRISTOPHER LANE
Art Unit
2824
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Micron Technology, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 23 resolved
+19.0% vs TC avg
Strong +15% interview lift
Without
With
+15.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
55
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
59.2%
+19.2% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 23 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “continued” in claims 8 and 16 is used by the claim to mean “continuous.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In the interest of compact prosecution, the word ‘continuous’ will be substituted in claims 8 and 16. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,726,929 B1 to Xiang Yang (hereafter Yang) in view of US 2011/0080789 A1 to Pranav Kalavade, et al. (hereafter Kalavade). Regarding Independent Claim 1, Yang discloses a memory device comprising: A memory array comprising (A memory array: Yang, Figure 7): a memory cell connected to a target wordline (A memory cell connected to a wordline: Yang, Figure 7); and a first wordline adjacent to the target wordline (A wordline adjacent to the target wordline: Yang, Figure 7), wherein the first wordline is to be programmed immediately subsequent to the target wordline (The adjacent wordline to be programmed subsequent to the target wordline: Yang, col.4:1-14); and control logic (A controller 122: Yang, Figure 1), operatively coupled with the memory array (Controller 122 coupled to the memory array 126: Yang, Figure 1), identifying, based on programming level information of the first wordline (Identifying the programming level voltage of the adjacent wordline: Yang, col.5:14-16), a bitline voltage offset associated with the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage offset as compensation: Yang, col.5:39-42); and wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is adjusted by the bitline voltage offset (Bitline voltage offset adjusted to compensate for adjacent wordline programming: Yang, col.5:33-42). Yang discloses applying programming pulses to a target wordline associated with a memory cell (Yang, col.12:30-33) and verifying the programming level of the associated memory cell through verification checks (Yang, col.4:17-20). Yang fails to disclose comparing the verification voltage to a pre-determined threshold voltage meeting a threshold criterion or identifying a fixed bitline bias voltage associated with the memory cell. Kalavade, however, discloses a memory array wherein the programming operation includes performing operations comprising: causing a first programming pulse (A first programming pulse: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to be applied to the target wordline associated with the memory cell (The programming pulse applied to the word line associated with the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]); causing a program verify operation (A program verify operation following the initial pulse: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to be performed on the memory cell (The program verify operation performed on the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to verify programming of the memory cell (To verify programming of the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to a target programming level (Checking if the memory cell has a reached a pre-program voltage threshold (PPV): Kalavade, ¶[0028]); determining that a measured threshold voltage of the memory cell satisfies a threshold criterion (Once the memory cell has reached the PPV: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); identifying a fixed bitline bias level associated with the memory cell (Identifying a fixed bitline voltage for further programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); and causing, during applying a second programming pulse (During subsequent programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), an adjusted analog bitline voltage to be applied to the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage to the bitline associated with the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is based on the fixed bitline bias level (The applied bitline voltage being a predetermined voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0028]). Kalavade teaches adjusting the bitline bias voltage helps achieve a tight Vt distribution without suffering a significant overall device programming time penalty (Kalavade, ¶[0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the aSSPC bitline voltage bias logic of Kalavade with the program disturb analysis of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known methods of narrowing Vt distributions in memory cells using bitline bias voltages and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable. Regarding Claim 2 and the substantially similar limitations of Claims 10 and 18, Yang discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein the bitline voltage offset is specific to the target programming level (The bitline voltage compensation depends on the programming level of the target memory cell and the adjacent memory cell: Yang, col.5:25-32). Regarding Claim 3 and the substantially similar limitations of Claims 11 and 19, Yang discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein the programming level information of the first wordline depends on a number of bits of information reflecting a threshold voltage of one or more aggressor memory cells of the first wordline (Disclosing a simplified approach where compensation is determined by a single bit or two bits: Yang, col.5:18-24). Regarding Claim 4 and the substantially similar limitations of Claims 12 and 20, Yang discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein the bitline voltage offset is identified based on a data structure storing a plurality of bitline voltage offsets (Disclosing tables of compensation values: Yang, col.27:43-45), each bitline voltage offset of the plurality of bitline voltage offsets corresponding to a programming level of the memory cell and a categorized programming level of the first wordline (Compensation values corresponding to a difference between the programming level of the target cell and the cell on the adjacent wordline: Yang, col.27:43-65; See Also, Yang, Figures 15A-15E). Regarding Claim 5 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 13, Kalavade discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein causing the program verify operation to be performed on the memory cell to verify programming of the memory cell to the target programming level further comprises: comparing the measured threshold voltage with a program verify threshold voltage level (Disclosing comparing the current programming voltage threshold to a pre-determined programming voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0036]). Regarding Claim 6 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 14, Kalavade discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein determining that the measured threshold voltage of the memory cell satisfies the threshold criterion further comprises: comparing the measured threshold voltage with a pre-verify threshold voltage level (Comparing the measured voltage threshold to a pre-determined voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0036]), wherein the threshold criterion is satisfied responsive to that the measured threshold voltage is larger than the pre-verify threshold voltage level (Wherein the threshold is higher than a predetermined level: Kalavade, ¶[0036]) and smaller than a program verify threshold voltage level (The bitline voltage being increased to an inhibit voltage upon reaching the program threshold voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0035]). Regarding Claim 7 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 15, Yang discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein identifying the fixed bitline bias level associated with the memory cell is performed via a look-up operation of a stored or predetermined value (Disclosing tables of compensation values used to determine the bitline compensation bias: Yang, col.27:43-45). Regarding Claim 8 and the substantially similar limitations of Claim 16, Kalavade discloses the memory device of claim 1, wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is a continuous voltage (Disclosing a regular increase in applied bitline voltage for a series of pulses after passing the PPV: Kalavade, ¶[0036]; Note, Kalavade discloses particular increments rather than the smooth ramp illustrated by applicant as in Figure 5. This distinction is immaterial. Programming pulses are just that, pulses, and represent discrete points in time. Therefore, there is no difference in effect between a series of small steps versus a continuous ramp.) starting from a ground voltage level until reaching a level that is the fixed bitline bias level reduced by the bitline voltage offset (The bitline voltage increasing from a neutral voltage to a maximum: Kalavade, Figure 3). Regarding Independent Claim 9, Yang discloses a method comprising: causing, by a processing device (A processing controller: Yang, Figure 1) coupled with a memory array (Controller coupled with a memory array: Yang, Figure 1), a first programming pulse (Applying a programming pulse to memory cells: Yang, col.12:30-33) to be applied to a target wordline associated with a memory cell (Applying a programming pulse to memory cells: Yang, col.12:30-33), wherein the memory array comprises the memory cell connected to the target wordline (A memory cell connected to a wordline: Yang, Figure 7) and a first wordline adjacent to the target wordline (A wordline adjacent to the target wordline: Yang, Figure 7), and wherein the first wordline is to be programmed immediately subsequent to the target wordline (The adjacent wordline to be programmed subsequent to the target wordline: Yang, col.4:1-14); identifying, based on programming level information of the first wordline (Identifying the programming level voltage of the adjacent wordline: Yang, col.5:14-16), a bitline voltage offset associated with the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage offset as compensation: Yang, col.5:39-42); and wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is based on adjusted by the bitline voltage offset (Bitline voltage offset adjusted to compensate for adjacent wordline programming: Yang, col.5:33-42). Yang discloses verifying the programming level of the associated memory cell through verification checks (Yang, col.4:17-20). Yang fails to disclose comparing the verification voltage to a pre-determined threshold voltage meeting a threshold criterion or identifying a fixed bitline bias voltage associated with the memory cell. Kalavade, however, discloses a memory array wherein the programming operation includes performing operations comprising: causing a program verify operation (A program verify operation following the initial pulse: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to be performed on the memory cell (The program verify operation performed on the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to verify programming of the memory cell (To verify programming of the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to a target programming level (Checking if the memory cell has a reached a pre-program voltage threshold (PPV): Kalavade, ¶[0028]); determining that a measured threshold voltage of the memory cell satisfies a threshold criterion (Once the memory cell has reached the PPV: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); identifying a fixed bitline bias level associated with the memory cell (Identifying a fixed bitline voltage for further programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); and causing, during applying a second programming pulse (During subsequent programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), an adjusted analog bitline voltage to be applied to the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage to the bitline associated with the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is based on the fixed bitline bias level (The applied bitline voltage being a predetermined voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0028]). Kalavade teaches adjusting the bitline bias voltage helps achieve a tight Vt distribution without suffering a significant overall device programming time penalty (Kalavade, ¶[0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the aSSPC bitline voltage bias logic of Kalavade with the program disturb analysis of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known methods of narrowing Vt distributions in memory cells using bitline bias voltages and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable. Regarding Independent Claim 17, Yang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions (Instructions are inherent in a programming operation), which when executed by a processing device (A processing controller: Yang, Figure 1) coupled with a memory array (Controller coupled with a memory array: Yang, Figure 1), cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: causing a first programming pulse (Applying a programming pulse to memory cells: Yang, col.12:30-33) to be applied to a target wordline associated with a memory cell (Applying a programming pulse to memory cells: Yang, col.12:30-33), wherein the memory array comprises the memory cell connected to the target wordline (A memory cell connected to a wordline: Yang, Figure 7) and a first wordline adjacent to the target wordline (A wordline adjacent to the target wordline: Yang, Figure 7), and wherein the first wordline is to be programmed immediately subsequent to the target wordline (The adjacent wordline to be programmed subsequent to the target wordline: Yang, col.4:1-14); identifying, based on programming level information of the first wordline (Identifying the programming level voltage of the adjacent wordline: Yang, col.5:14-16), a bitline voltage offset associated with the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage offset as compensation: Yang, col.5:39-42); and wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is based on adjusted by the bitline voltage offset (Bitline voltage offset adjusted to compensate for adjacent wordline programming: Yang, col.5:33-42). Yang discloses verifying the programming level of the associated memory cell through verification checks (Yang, col.4:17-20). Yang fails to disclose comparing the verification voltage to a pre-determined threshold voltage meeting a threshold criterion or identifying a fixed bitline bias voltage associated with the memory cell. Kalavade, however, discloses a memory array wherein the programming operation includes performing operations comprising: causing a program verify operation (A program verify operation following the initial pulse: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to be performed on the memory cell (The program verify operation performed on the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to verify programming of the memory cell (To verify programming of the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0019]) to a target programming level (Checking if the memory cell has a reached a pre-program voltage threshold (PPV): Kalavade, ¶[0028]); determining that a measured threshold voltage of the memory cell satisfies a threshold criterion (Once the memory cell has reached the PPV: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); identifying a fixed bitline bias level associated with the memory cell (Identifying a fixed bitline voltage for further programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]); and causing, during applying a second programming pulse (During subsequent programming pulses: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), an adjusted analog bitline voltage to be applied to the memory cell (Applying a bitline voltage to the bitline associated with the memory cell: Kalavade, ¶[0028]), wherein the adjusted analog bitline voltage is based on the fixed bitline bias level (The applied bitline voltage being a predetermined voltage: Kalavade, ¶[0028]). Kalavade teaches adjusting the bitline bias voltage helps achieve a tight Vt distribution without suffering a significant overall device programming time penalty (Kalavade, ¶[0015]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of this application, to combine the aSSPC bitline voltage bias logic of Kalavade with the program disturb analysis of Yang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both inventions are well known methods of narrowing Vt distributions in memory cells using bitline bias voltages and the combination of known inventions with predictable results is obvious and not patentable. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,594,292 B2 to Scott A. Stoller, et al.: Disclosing applying a bitline bias voltage during a programming operation responsive to determining that a threshold voltage has been reached. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER LANE REECE whose telephone number is (571)272-0288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5pm. 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 at (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. /CHRISTOPHER LANE REECE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2824 /UYEN SMET/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592290
MEMORY DEVICES WITH PROGRAM VERIFY LEVELS BASED ON COMPENSATION VALUES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592282
MEMORY DEVICE PERFORMING PROGRAM OPERATION AND METHOD OF OPERATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586647
PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES THAT UTILIZE ANALOG BITSCAN IN A MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586649
STORAGE DEVICE WITH WORD LINES APPLIED WITH RESPECTIVE VOLTAGE LEVELS DURING DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12531110
SYNCHRONOUS INDEPENDENT PLANE READ OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+15.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 23 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month