Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/982,255

THRESHOLD VOLTAGE BIN CALIBRATION AT MEMORY DEVICE POWER UP

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Dec 16, 2024
Examiner
MAMO, ELIAS
Art Unit
2184
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Micron Technology, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
766 granted / 922 resolved
+28.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
941
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
58.8%
+18.8% vs TC avg
§102
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.1%
-27.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 922 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §DP
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, claims 1-7 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: One of the factors weighing against eligibility is that there is no recitation of a machine or transformation. In this particular case, the method steps of claim 1 of: “ 1. A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing device, a plurality of data state metrics with respect to a block, wherein each data state metric corresponds to a respective voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, and wherein each data state metric is determined based on a voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin; and storing a voltage offset bin having a lowest voltage offset whose corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion for performing memory access operations with respect to a block family including the block.” are directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: there is no device/apparatus/machine recited in the claims (e.g.-claim 1) and/or there is no practical transformation of a machine that is tied to the claims due to the execution of the recited method steps, hence, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be performed/narrated mentally. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1 is directed to an abstract idea of collecting data, and analyzing the data to provide certain results. For instance, in Electric Power Group, the concept of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis were found to be abstract. In analyzing claim 1 of the instant application, the limitations “A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing device, a plurality of data state metrics with respect to a block, wherein each data state metric corresponds to a respective voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, and wherein each data state metric is determined based on a voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin; and storing a voltage offset bin having a lowest voltage offset whose corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion for performing memory access operations with respect to a block family including the block.” are directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea of the instant application is substantially similar to the court identified abstract idea found in Electric Power Group. It is similar because it accesses data, determines/identifies certain data (analysis), and accesses the determined/identified certain data. Other court identified abstract idea are related to the abstract idea identified in the instant application, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource) and organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech). Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claim. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 1-7 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,759. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar with minor differences and not distinguishing the overall appearance of one over the other. Note: the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims of the parent, as outlined in the table below. Current application-18/982,255 US Patent – 12,210,759 1. A method comprising: obtaining, by a processing device, … a respective voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, … 3. The method of claim 1, …wherein… , performing, with respect to the block, a memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric. …and wherein each data state metric is determined based on a voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin; and … a voltage offset bin having a lowest voltage offset whose corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion for performing memory access operations with respect to a block family including the block. 1. A method comprising: identifying, by a processing device, a block family; for each voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, performing, with respect to a block, a memory access operation utilizing a voltage offset associated with a respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric; … based on the corresponding data state metric associated with the plurality of voltage offset bins, a voltage offset bin with a lowest voltage offset in which the corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion; and … for performing subsequent memory access operation with respect to the block family. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that a memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin failed to obtain the corresponding data state metric, storing a voltage offset bin that produced an optimal value of the data state metric for performing subsequent memory access operation with respect to a block family including the block. 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to determining that the memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with a respective voltage offset bin failed to obtain the corresponding data state metric,…. 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: storing voltage offset bin that produced an optimal value of the data state metric for performing subsequent memory access operation with respect to the block family. 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. 7. The method of claim 2, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the data state metric is a bit error rate. 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the data state metric is a bit error rate. 8. A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: obtaining, by a processing device,… 10. The system of claim 8, wherein… for each voltage offset bin of the plurality of voltage offset bins, performing, with respect to the block, a memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric. a plurality of data state metrics with respect to a block, wherein each data state metric corresponds to a respective voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, and… storing a voltage offset bin having a lowest voltage offset whose corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion for performing memory access operations with respect to a block family… 8. A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: identifying, by a processing device,… for each voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, performing, with respect to a block, a memory access operation utilizing a voltage offset associated with a respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric; selecting, based on the corresponding data state metric associated with the plurality of voltage offset bins, a voltage offset bin with a lowest voltage offset in which the corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion; and … for performing subsequent memory access operation with respect to the block family. 9. The system of claim 8, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 13. The system of claim 8, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 11. The system of claim 10, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 11. The system of claim 8, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. 14. The system of claim 9, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. 14. The system of claim 8, wherein the data state metric is a bit error rate. 12. The system of claim 8, wherein the data state metric is a bit error rate. 15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: obtaining, by a processing device,…a respective voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, 17. The non-transitory computer- readable storage medium of claim 15,… performing, with respect to the block, a memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric. and wherein…storing a voltage offset bin having a lowest voltage offset whose corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion for performing memory access operations with respect to a block family including the block. 15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: identifying, by a processing device, a block family; for each voltage offset bin of a plurality of voltage offset bins, performing, with respect to a block, a memory access operation utilizing a voltage offset associated with a respective voltage offset bin to obtain a corresponding data state metric; selecting, based on the corresponding data state metric associated with the plurality of voltage offset bins, a voltage offset bin with a lowest voltage offset in which the corresponding data state metric satisfies a predefined quality criterion; and storing voltage offset bin with the lowest voltage offset for performing subsequent memory access operation with respect to the block family. 16. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein satisfying the predefined quality criterion comprises determining if a value of the data state metric does not exceed a predefined threshold. 18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the memory access operation is a read operation. 19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein causing the processing device to perform operations further comprising: responsive to determining that a memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with the respective voltage offset bin failed to obtain the corresponding data state metric, storing a voltage offset bin that produced an optimal value of the data state metric for… 16. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the processing device is caused to perform operations further comprising: responsive to determining that the memory access operation utilizing the voltage offset associated with a respective voltage offset bin failed to obtain the corresponding data state metric, selecting, … a voltage offset bin that produced an optimal value of the data state metric. 20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. 20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the optimal value if represented by one of: a minimum value of the data state metric or a maximum value of the data state metric. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-20 are objected to because of the presence of the obviousness type double patenting rejection (see above) but would be allowable if the rejection is overcome. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached PTO-892. Reyter et al. (US 10,453,537), Ruby et al. (US 8,510,636), Malshe et al. (US 10,347,344), Karakulak et al. (US 9,576,671), Danjean et al. (US 10,276,233) and Bellorado et al. (US 9,236,147) do teach and a programming method of multiple memory cells of a memory device by determining a threshold voltage offset to minimize bit error rate of the programming operation. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM. 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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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. /Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 16, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §101, §DP
Apr 06, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596660
I/O SERVER SERVICES CONFIGURED TO FACILITATE CONTROL IN A PROCESS CONTROL ENVIRONMENT BY CONTAINERIZED CONTROLLER SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12566570
WRITE COMBINE BUFFER (WCB) FOR DEEP NEURAL NETWORK (DNN) ACCELERATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561147
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UPDATING FIRMWARE OF HEADPHONES WITH DEDICATED EARPIECE CONTROLLERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554592
INTEGRATION OF DATABASE WITH DISTRIBUTED STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12554669
PCIE INTERRUPT PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS, DEVICE AND NON-TRANSITORY READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
83%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+5.6%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 922 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