DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in response to communications filed 06/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The Examiner notes the current action does not include prior art rejections over the current presentation of the claims. The cited relevant prior art references made of record below are considered as pertinent to the claims and disclosed details provided in the Specification.
The claims are subject to the rejections provided herein which must be addressed accordingly.
Priority
Applicant’s priority claim as a continuation of US Application 18/401,251 filed 12/29/2023, now US Patent No. 12,327,048, which claims priority to US Application 17/691,467 filed 03/10/2022, now US Patent No. 11,861,233, which claims priority to provisionally filed Application 63/292,830 filed 12/22/2021 is herein acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 06/30/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 06/09/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.” Herein it is unclear as to the purpose of the confidence measure to determining if the data is correctly read for each of the memory cells to then use the copy of the data with the lower measure of confidence. Claim 4 recites that “responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.” Herein it is indicated that the first copy having the higher measure of confidence is utilized which further supports the lack of clarity in claim 5.
Claims 12 and 19 recite the same limitation as claim 5. The Examiner further notes the originally filed Specification discloses in Paragraphs [0023] and [0054] that “data read from the location with the higher measure of confidence can be used and similarly either reduce the need to use the ECC or provide more reliable bits to the ECC” and “[c]onsequently, the DCA component 113 can use the copy of the data bit stored in the memory cell having the higher measure of confidence”, respectively. For purposes of the current action, it is interpreted that claims 5, 12, and 19 are to recite using the second copy responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,048, hereinafter referred to as “Patent”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader recitation of those in the US Patent as demonstrated by the comparison below. In this manner, it may be considered that the claims of the US Patent may anticipate the claims of the instant application as they are of narrow scope.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,327,048
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within the first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range of threshold voltages; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range, using the second copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; and determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is to further perform the operations comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the second range, determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell.
The system of claim 3, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein the processing device is to further perform the operations comprising: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
A method comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within the first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range of threshold voltages; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range, using the second copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range of threshold voltages, using the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 8, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
A method comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 8, further comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the second range, determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell.
The method of claim 10, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, further comprising: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence; and performing one of:(i) responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data; or (ii) responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The method of claim 12, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The method of claim 10, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The method of claim 12, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The method of claim 8, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on a memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
The method of claim 10, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within the first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; determining whether a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range of threshold voltages; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range, using the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, further comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range of threshold voltages, using the second copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, the operations further comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the second range, determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, the operations further comprising: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence; and performing one of:(i) responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data; or (ii) responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
Regarding claim 1, the claim of the instant application is substantially similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 4 of the Patent as noted by the unbolded portions of each claim in the table above. The bolded portions of claim 1 of the instant application and US Patent notes the differences and the US Patent thereby presenting a narrower scope establishes that the US Patent would otherwise anticipate the limitations of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 2 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the copy of data with the higher measure of confidence.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 5 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 6 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 7 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 1 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to Claim 8, Claim 10 and claim 11 of the Patent. This is on the similar basis as noted above for the system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 9 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 8, 10, and 11 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 12 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 13 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 14 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 8 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to Claim 15, Claim 17 and claim 18 of the Patent. This is on the similar basis as noted above for the system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 16 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 15, 17, and 18 of the Patent.
Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 19 of the Patent.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
The Examiner notes MPEP Section 804.02 (IV) cited below:
If multiple conflicting patents and/or pending applications are applied in nonstatutory double patenting rejections made in a single application, then prior to issuance of that application, it is necessary to disclaim the terminal part of any patent granted on the application which would extend beyond the expiration date of each one of the conflicting patents and/or applications. A terminal disclaimer fee is required for each terminal disclaimer filed. To avoid paying multiple terminal disclaimer fees, a single terminal disclaimer based on common ownership may be filed, for example, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting, commonly owned nonstatutory double patenting references. Similarly, a single terminal disclaimer based on a joint research agreement may be filed, in which the term disclaimed is based on all the conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references.
Each one of the commonly owned conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references must be included in the terminal disclaimer to avoid the problem of dual ownership of patents to patentably indistinct inventions in the event that the patent issuing from the application being examined ceases to be commonly owned with any one of the double patenting references that have issued or may issue as a patent. Note that 37 CFR 1.321(c)(3) requires that a terminal disclaimer for commonly owned conflicting claims "[i]nclude a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the judicially created double patenting."
Filing a terminal disclaimer including each one of the conflicting nonstatutory double patenting references is also necessary to avoid the problem of separate enforcement of patents to patentably indistinct inventions by parties to a joint research agreement. 37 CFR 1.321(d) sets forth the requirements for a terminal disclaimer where the claimed invention resulted from activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,861,233, hereinafter referred to as “Patent II”. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are a broader recitation of those in the US Patent II as demonstrated by the comparison below. In this manner, it may be considered that the claims of the US Patent II may anticipate the claims of the instant application as they are of narrower scope.
Instant Application
US Patent 11,861,233
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: receiving data to be stored on the memory device; storing a first copy of the data in a first set of memory cells of the memory device, wherein the first set of memory cells comprises a first memory cell; storing a second copy of the data in a second set of memory cells of the memory device, wherein the second set of memory cells comprises a second memory cell; reading the first copy of the data and determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first overlapping range of a first threshold voltage distribution and a second threshold voltage distribution, wherein each distribution is representative of a respective binary logical state of the first memory cell; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within the first overlapping range, reading the second copy of the data and determining whether the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second overlapping range of a third threshold voltage distribution and a fourth threshold voltage distribution, wherein each distribution is representative of a respective binary logical state of the second memory cell; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second overlapping range, using the second copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; and determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence.
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing device is to further perform the operations comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the second overlapping range, determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell.
The system of claim 3, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein the processing device is to further perform the operations comprising: responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding overlapping range of voltage distributions.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The system of claim 3, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
The system of claim 1, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
A method comprising: receiving data to be stored on a memory device; storing a first copy of the data in a first set of memory cells of a memory device, wherein the first set of memory cells comprises a first memory cell; storing a second copy of the data in a second set of memory cells of the memory device, wherein the second set of memory cells comprises a second memory cell; reading the first copy of the data and determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first overlapping range of a first threshold voltage distribution and a second threshold voltage distribution, wherein each distribution is representative of a respective binary logical state of the first memory cell; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within the first overlapping range, reading the second copy of the data and determining whether the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second overlapping range of a third threshold voltage distribution and a fourth threshold voltage distribution, wherein each distribution is representative of a respective binary logical state of the second memory cell; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second overlapping range, using the second copy of the data.
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range of threshold voltages, using the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 8, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
A method comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 8, further comprising, responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the second overlapping range, determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell.
The method of claim 10, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, further comprising responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence; and performing one of:(i) responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data; or (ii) responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding overlapping range of voltage distributions.
The method of claim 12, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The method of claim 10, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The method of claim 12, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for each memory cell is a log likelihood ratio.
The method of claim 8, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
The method of claim 10, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on the memory device, the location being one of a block or a plane on a die of the memory device.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells of a memory device, wherein the first set of memory cells comprises a first memory cell, and determining whether a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a high reliability range of threshold voltages; responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the first memory cell is not within the high reliability range, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells of the memory device, wherein the second set of memory cells comprises a second memory cell, and determining whether a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the high reliability range of threshold voltages; and responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within the high reliability range, using the second copy of the data.
The method of claim 10, further comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is outside the second range of threshold voltages, using the second copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions further cause the processing device to perform the operations comprising: responsive to determining that the threshold voltage of the second memory cell is not within the high reliability range, performing a strobed read operation on each of the first memory cell and second memory cell, wherein a reference voltage of each strobe of the strobed read operation defines a boundary of a bin of threshold voltages within an overlapping range of a first threshold voltage distribution and a second threshold voltage distribution, wherein each distribution is representative of a respective logical state.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: reading a first copy of data stored in a first set of memory cells comprising a first memory cell; responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the first memory cell is within a first range of threshold voltages, reading a second copy of the data stored in a second set of memory cells comprising a second memory cell; and responsive to determining that a threshold voltage of the second memory cell is within a second range, determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: determining which of the first memory cell and the second memory cell has the threshold voltage within a bin farthest from a center of the overlapping range.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the processing device is to perform operations further comprising: responsive to determining that the second memory cell has the threshold voltage within the bin farther from a center of the overlapping range, using the second copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein determining whether to use the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data further comprises: determining respective measures of confidence that the data is correctly read for each of the first memory cell and the second memory cell; determining whether the first copy of the data or the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence; and performing one of:(i) responsive to determining that the first copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data; or (ii) responsive to determining that the second copy of the data has a higher measure of confidence, using the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the second copy of the data is an inverse of the first copy of the data.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the measure of confidence that the data is correctly stored for a memory cell is based on a difference between the threshold voltage of the memory cell and a voltage at a center of a corresponding range of voltage distributions.
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the first memory cell and the second memory cell are each in a different location on a die of the memory device.
Regarding claim 1, the claim of the instant application is substantially similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 3, and Claim 4 of the Patent II as noted by the unbolded portions of each claim in the table above. The bolded portions of claim 1 of the instant application and US Patent II notes the differences and the US Patent II thereby presenting a narrower scope establishes that the US Patent would otherwise anticipate the limitations of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 2 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 3 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 4 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 5 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 1, 3, and 4 of the Patent II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the copy of data with the higher measure of confidence.
Regarding claim 6 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 5 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 7 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 6 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 8 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 7 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 9 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 1 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 10 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to Claim 8, Claim 10 and claim 11 of the Patent II. This is on the similar basis as noted above for the system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 9 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 12 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 8, 10, and 11 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 13 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 12 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 14 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 13 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 15 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 14 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 8 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to Claim 15 of the Patent II. This is on the similar basis as noted above for the system of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claim 19 of the Patent II.
Regarding claim 19 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 15, 10, and 11 of the Patent II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the non-transitory medium to include instructions for performing steps as recited in the method of claims 10 and 11.
Regarding claim 20 of the instant application, the limitations are substantially identical to claims 15, 10, and 12 of the Patent II. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the non-transitory medium to include instructions for performing steps as recited in the method of claims 10 and 12.
This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shiga et al. (US 2006/0050314) – Paragraph [0012] wherein managing a memory cell array and performing ECC is discussed.
Hung et al. (US 2014/0098616) – Claim 1 wherein storing copies of data to pairs of memory cells and measuring current flow through the cells is discussed.
Liang (US 9,563,504) – Column 4 wherein managing open block programming is discussed.
Shalvi et al. (US 2009/0043951) – Paragraphs [0057-61] wherein multi-level cell programming is discussed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER J YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7629. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-3pm ET. The examiner’s email is alexander.yoon2@uspto.gov.
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, Jared Rutz can be reached on 571-272-5535. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ALEXANDER YOON/
Examiner, Art Unit 2135
/JARED I RUTZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights