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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/10/2024. These drawings are review and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “comprise” in page 1, lines 2, 4, 6, which is implied. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use recite functional language but are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Apparatus claims 1-3, 5-9’s “one or more components” that is “configured to” perform recited operations;
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the elements “means for receiving….; means for detecting…”; “means for selecting…” in claim 17. Blocks are not shown in enough detail to warrant protection under 35 USC 112(f). A generic box with a label does not sufficiently describe the underlying structure that performs the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 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 1-3, 5-10, 12-13, 15-20 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snyder et al (US 6,661,724 B1 hereinafter “Snyder”).
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.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses a memory device (e.g., memory device 270; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10), comprising:
one or more components (e.g., 220; in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10) configured to:
receive a command (e.g., a request via bus 215; in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10) to perform an operation (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10);
detect, responsive to receiving the command (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above), a temperature (e.g., 230 and 280; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10) associated with the memory device (see for example in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10); and
selectively configure, based on the temperature, a clock frequency (e.g., 250; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10) of a charge pump of the memory device (e.g., 240; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10).
The structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the operation is a read operation (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the one or more components, configured to selectively configure the clock frequency, are configured to selectively configure the clock frequency based on a quantity of bits associated with a memory cell (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 5, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the operation is a program operation (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 6, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the one or more components, configured to selectively configure the clock frequency, are configured to selectively configure the clock frequency using a lookup table (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the lookup table indicates multiple temperature ranges and, for each temperature range of the multiple temperature ranges, a corresponding clock frequency value (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the one or more components are configured to: perform the operation before detecting the temperature (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 9, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the one or more components are configured to: perform the operation after selectively configuring the clock frequency (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 10, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the memory device is a non-volatile memory device (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Independent Claim 12, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses a method (see for example in Fig. 4 related in Figs. 1-3, 5-10), comprising: detecting a temperature (e.g., 230 and 280; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10) associated with a memory device (e.g., memory device 270; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10); identifying a ramp rate value that corresponds to the temperature (via temperature sensor230 and temperature column 282 containing variables; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10); and selectively configure a ramp rate of a charge pump of the memory device based on the ramp rate value (implied that is “programming time as a function of temperature and voltage, programming voltage as a function of temperature and time, or programming temperature as a function of voltage and time”).
Regarding claim 13, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein identifying the ramp rate value includes identifying the ramp rate value based on a quantity of bits associated with a memory cell (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 15, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein identifying the ramp rate value includes identifying the ramp rate value using a lookup table (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above).
Regarding claim 16, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the lookup table indicates multiple temperature ranges and, for each temperature range of the multiple temperature ranges, a corresponding ramp rate value (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses an apparatus (see for example in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10, as discussed above), comprising:
means for receiving a command (e.g., a request via bus 215; in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10) to perform an operation (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above);
means for detecting, responsive to receiving the command, a temperature (e.g., 230 and 280; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10, as discussed above) associated with the apparatus (see for example in Figs. 2, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3-5, 7-10, as discussed above); and
means for selectively configuring, based on the temperature, a clock frequency (e.g., 250; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10, as discussed above) of a charge pump of the apparatus (e.g., 240; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-10, as discussed above).
The structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 18, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the operation is a read operation (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 19, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the means for selectively configuring the clock frequency include means for selectively configuring the clock frequency using a lookup table (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 20, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses wherein the apparatus is a non-volatile memory device (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 4, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder et al (US 6,661,724 B1 hereinafter “Snyder”) in view of Schuette et al (US 9,081,665 B2 hereinafter “Schuette”).
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.
Regarding claim 4, Snyder, for example in Figs. 1-10, discloses non-volatile memory as discussed above. However, Snyder is silent with regard to the memory cell is a single-level cell (SLC).
In the same field of endeavor, Schuette, for example in Figs. 1-6, discloses the memory cell is a single-level cell (SLC) (e.g., single-level cell (SLC) NAND flash memory; in Fig. 6 related in Figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Snyder such as method and system for programming a memory device (see for example in Figs. 1-10 of Snyder) by incorporating the teaching of Schuetter such as apparatus, methods and architecture to increase write performance and endurance of non-volatile solid state memory components (see for example in Figs. 1-6 of Schuetter), for the purpose of controlling the operation of a NAND flash-based solid state drive in any host computer system (for example, a standard personal computer or server environment) can be described as highly inefficient, since the drive is subjected to small writes at high frequencies and yet very poor utilization of the actual memory capacity of its NAND flash memory components (Schuetter, see Col. 7, lines 10-16).
The structure in of the prior art (Snyder and Schuetter) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, the above Snyder/Schuetter, combination discloses wherein the non-volatile memory device is a NAND memory device (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10 of Snyder and also see in Fig. 6 related in Figs. 1-5 of Schuetter, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Snyder and Schuetter) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claims from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 14, the above Snyder/Schuetter, combination discloses wherein the memory cell is a single-level cell (SLC) (see for example in Figs. 2, 4, 6 related in Figs. 1, 3, 5, 7-10 of Snyder and also see in Fig. 6 related in Figs. 1-5 of Schuetter, as discussed above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THA-O H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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 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.
/THA-O H BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825 06/10/2026
Prosecution Insights