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 .
Response to Application
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 05/08/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 20 are presented for examination.
Objection to Amendment—New Matter
The amendment to independent claims 1, 11 and 18 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. §132(a) because it introduces new matter. Specifically, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of: “performing, based on a set of read voltages starting from the first read voltage, a second read operation on memory cells coupled to a second word line of the memory device; and sending data read from the memory cells coupled to the second word line.”
Paragraphs [0081]– [0082] disclose applying a starting read voltage to memory cells coupled to a selected word line to determine whether the corresponding page is a zero page. If the quantity of failed memory cells is less than the threshold, the memory device ends the read operation and returns a zero-page response. If the quantity is greater than or equal to the threshold, the memory device proceeds with a normal read operation by applying subsequent read voltages “to the selected word line.”
Thus, the originally filed disclosure teaches continuing the read operation on the same selected word line when the page is not identified as a zero page. It does not disclose ending the operation involving a first word line and performing a second read operation on memory cells coupled to a different, second word line using a voltage set starting from the same first read voltage. Nor does it disclose sending data read from such a second word line as part of the recited sequence.
Paragraph [0077] merely describes the order in which read voltages are applied when reading a lower, middle, or upper page.
Paragraphs [0078]– [0080] describe the threshold-voltage distribution and programming of a zero page. These passages do not establish the newly claimed relationship between operations performed on first- and second-word lines.
Figures 5A–5C illustrate threshold-voltage distributions and associated read voltages but do not depict operations involving respective first- and second-word lines.
Figure 6 illustrates page-specific read-voltage waveforms for lower, middle, and upper logical pages. Although Figure 6 may support performing a page read using a set of read voltages that includes a respective starting read voltage, it does not identify different word lines or disclose that a second read operation is performed on a second word line using a set beginning with the same first read voltage previously applied to a first word line. Rather, consistent with paragraph [0082], Figure 6 supports applying subsequent read voltages to the same selected word line when that selected page is not determined to be a zero page.
Figure 7 concerns program/verify voltages and likewise does not disclose the claimed cross-word-line read sequence. Furthermore, none of the drawings depicts sending data read from the second word line
Accordingly, the amendment adds a cross-word-line read sequence and an associated common starting-voltage relationship that are not reasonably conveyed by the application as originally filed.
Applicant is required to delete the newly added subject matter or identify specific support in the originally filed disclosure.
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 1-3, 5-13, 15-18 and 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, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) as failing to comply with the written-description requirement.
The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant possessed, as of the filing date, performing a second read operation on memory cells coupled to a second word line using a set of read voltages starting from the same “first read voltage” used in connection with memory cells coupled to a first word line, and sending data read from the second word line.
Detailed Analysis
The key claim language at issue is:
“performing, based on a set of read voltages starting from the first read voltage, a second read operation on memory cells coupled to a second word line of the memory device; and sending data read from the memory cells coupled to the second word line.”
What the specification describes
[0077] discusses the order of applying multiple read voltages (descending order) when reading lower/middle/upper pages of a TLC device. This is a conventional multi-strobe sequence on a selected word line.
[0078]– [0080] define what a zero page is and how cells on a selected word line are programmed into a high-
V
t
V_t state 512 that sits above the normal starting read voltages (VR1, VR2, VR3).
[0081]– [0082] (the most relevant paragraphs) describe the zero-page detection process:
Apply a single starting reading voltage (VR1 for lower page, VR2 for middle page, or VR3 for upper page) to the selected word line.
Count the number of failed cells (those with
V
t
V_t lower than the starting read voltage).
If the count is less than a threshold → end the read operation and send a zero-page status response (e.g., E1h).
If the count is greater than or equal to the threshold → “proceed with a normal read operation (e.g., as shown in FIG. 6) by applying subsequent read voltages to the selected word line.”
Critical missing support
No disclosure of a second word lineEvery step in [0077]– [0082] refers exclusively to “the selected word line” (singular). There is no teaching of moving to, or performing any read on, a different (“second”) word line after the zero-page check.
No disclosure of a separate second read operation that starts with the first read voltage on a different word line.
When the page is not a zero page, the specification only teaches continuing the multi-voltage sequence on the same selected word line by applying subsequent voltages. It does not teach starting a new, independent multi-voltage read on a second word line that begins with the same first read voltage.
No disclosure of sending data from a second word line in this flowThe only data-sending action described is the zero-page status response when the count is below threshold. There is no corresponding teaching of reading and sending actual page data from a different word line as part of the same method.
The drawings do not cure the written-description deficiency.
Figures 5A–5C illustrate threshold-voltage distributions and associated read voltages but do not depict operations involving respective first- and second-word lines.
Figure 6 illustrates page-specific read-voltage waveforms for lower, middle, and upper logical pages. Although Figure 6 may support performing a page read using a set of read voltages that includes a respective starting read voltage, it does not identify different word lines or disclose that a second read operation is performed on a second word line using a set beginning with the same first read voltage previously applied to a first word line. Rather, consistent with paragraph [0082], Figure 6 supports applying subsequent read voltages to the same selected word line when that selected page is not determined to be a zero page.
Figure 7 concerns program/verify voltages and likewise does not disclose the claimed cross-word-line read sequence. Furthermore, none of the drawings depicts sending data read from the second word line.
As discussed above, paragraphs [0081]– [0082] disclose only two outcomes for the selected word line:
If the failed-cell quantity is below the threshold, terminate the read and return a zero-page response; or
If the quantity is at least the threshold, continue the normal read by applying subsequent voltages to that same selected word line.
The disclosure does not describe transitioning to a second word line following the first-word-line operation, beginning a second-word-line read-voltage set with the same first read voltage, or sending data obtained from that second word line. Disclosure of the individual concepts of read voltages, word lines, and returning read data does not, without more, demonstrate possession of their newly claimed arrangement and relationship.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 therefore encompass subject matter not adequately described in the application as originally filed.
Dependent claims are rejected for relying on rejected base claims 1, 11 and 18.
Response to Argument
First Argument
Applicant’s First arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gaewsky cannot determine that the NAND page has a valid zero-voltage programmed state merely because the LOW FAILING BYTES count is below its limit, because Gaewsky also evaluates the HIGH FAILING BYTES count.
Claim 1, however, does not require that the read operation be ended or that the zero-page response be sent solely or exclusively based on the recited quantity of below-threshold failing memory cells. The claim merely requires those actions to occur “in response to” determining that the recited quantity is less than a threshold. The claim does not exclude consideration of another condition.
Gaewsky teaches that a cell having a threshold voltage below
V
BELOW
is identified as a failing memory cell and contributes to the LOW FAILING BYTES count. Gaewsky [0042], [0044], [0054]. Gaewsky further teaches that the LOW count is compared with FAILING BYTES LIMIT 534 and that the validation process terminates and returns PASS when the LOW and HIGH counts satisfy their applicable limits. Gaewsky [0061]; Fig. 5B. Gaewsky’s termination and PASS response therefore depend, at least in part, on the determination that the LOW FAILING BYTES count satisfies the threshold. The additional HIGH-count condition does not negate that causal relationship.
Applicant’s position would effectively rewrite the limitation as requiring the response to be sent “solely in response to” the LOW failing-cell quantity, without consideration of any other page condition. Claim 1 contains no such exclusionary language. A result may properly occur “in response to” a recited determination even when another condition also must be satisfied.
Applicant’s failed-byte argument is likewise unpersuasive. Gaewsky expressly detects individual failing memory cells below
V
BELOW
; it merely aggregates the detected failures using a failed-byte count. Gaewsky [0044], [0054]. That count is a quantity representative of the identified failing-cell population. Moreover, directly counting the identified failing cells instead of aggregating them by erroneous byte would have been an obvious alternative implementation producing the same predictable zero-page validation function.
Thus, Gaewsky’s “does not exceed” comparison does not materially distinguish the claimed “less than” comparison. For integer-valued counts, acceptance through limit
L
is identically expressed as a count less than exclusive threshold
L
+
1
. The difference concerns only how the threshold boundary is denominated, not a different page-validation operation.
Second Argument
Applicant’s arguments that Gaewsky does not disclose the newly added limitations have been fully considered. The arguments are persuasive with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102.
Gaewsky anticipates claim 1 as originally presented by disclosing performing a read operation using a first read voltage, determining a quantity of memory cells having threshold voltages below the first read voltage, and ending the read operation when the quantity is below a threshold.
However, Gaewsky does not disclose the limitations newly added by amendment concerning performing a second read operation on memory cells coupled to a second word line using a set of read voltages starting from the first read voltage and sending data read from the second word line. Accordingly, the §102 rejection of amended claim 1 over Gaewsky is withdrawn.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s arguments do not place claim 1 in condition for allowance. The limitations relied upon to distinguish Gaewsky were added by amendment and are not adequately supported by the application as originally filed.
Applicant’s reliance on paragraph [0045] as written-description support for the amended limitation, however, is not persuasive. Paragraph [0045] discloses applying the starting read voltage of a read-voltage set to a memory page, determining whether that page is a zero page, and, if so, ending the read operation without applying subsequent read voltages. Paragraph [0045] does not disclose a first word line and a different second word line, performing a second read operation on the second word line using the voltage set beginning with the same starting voltage, or sending data read from the second word line.
Consistent with paragraph [0045], paragraph [0082] states that when the tested page is not a zero page, the memory device proceeds with the normal read operation by applying subsequent read voltages “to the selected word line.” The disclosure therefore conveys alternative processing of the same selected word line—not applying the starting voltage alone to a first word line while applying the voltage set beginning with that voltage to a second word line.
Applicant’s argument itself confirms the material relationship introduced by the amendment: the voltage used for the first word-line zero-page determination is the starting voltage of the set used to read data from the second word line. Although that relationship distinguishes Gaewsky’s specialized teaching, paragraph [0045] does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed cross-word-line implementation. The amendment therefore remains objected to under 35 U.S.C. §132(a), and claims 1, 11 and 18 and dependent claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of adequate written-description support.
As explained in the objection to the amendment and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the original disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of performing a second read operation on a second word line using a set of read voltages beginning with the same first read voltage used in the operation involving the first word line, or sending data read from that second word line. Accordingly, the amendment remains objected to under 35 U.S.C. §132(a), and amended claims 1, 11 and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for lack of adequate written-description support.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRACY C CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9992. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 AM to 6 PM 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, TIM VO can be reached on (571)272-3642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRACY C CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights