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 Interpretation
The Office notes that method Claims 11-17 have been found to recite the following contingent limitations:
Claim 11: “in response to an error existing in data read from a first cell area of a memory cell array, entering a valley search mode based on control by a memory controller”.
Claim 17: “in response to an uncorrectable error correction code (UECC) occurring in a read operation on the first cell area, the method further includes calculating the appropriate read level in response to a command from the memory controller.”
As such, the Office has interpreted this claim language in accordance with MPEP 2111.04 (II), which recites, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”
The Office notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claims 11 and 17 does not include performing the contingent “in response to” steps indicated above, since the claim does not recite the precedent conditions of “an error existing in data read from a first cell area of a memory cell array,” in Claim 11, and “an uncorrectable error correction code (UECC) occurring in a read operation on the first cell area” or “a command from the memory controller” in Claim 17.
The Office has examined Claims 11-17 in light of these contingent limitations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and methods for calculating an appropriate read level.
The limitations in Independent Claims 1, 11 and 18 of performing calculations as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations of “calculate first through Nth counting values respectively corresponding to first through Nth read levels,” “calculate a crossing point of at least two linear functions modeled by substituting the first through Nth read levels as inputs and the first through Nth counting values as outputs,” and “calculate the appropriate read level based on at least one of the read level and a valley height corresponding to a coordinate value of the crossing point (where N is an integer equal to or greater than 3),” in Claim 1; “calculating first through fourth counting values respectively corresponding to first through fourth read levels,” “modeling an Mth-order function based on at least some of the first through fourth read levels and the counting values corresponding thereto (where M is an integer greater than or equal to 2),” “modeling one linear function based on the first and second counting values respectively corresponding to the first and second read levels,” “modeling at least one other linear function based on the third and fourth counting values respectively corresponding to the third and fourth read levels,” and “calculating an appropriate read level for the first cell area, by applying a compensation value to a read level calculated by using the Mth-order function, the compensation value calculated using the one linear function and the at least one other linear function” in Claim 11; and “calculate first through Nth counting values respectively corresponding to first through Nth read levels” and “a coordinate value of a crossing point of at least two linear functions modeled by substituting the first through Nth read levels as inputs and the first through Nth counting values as outputs (where N is an integer equal to or greater than 3)” in Claim 18, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional element, “output a flag to a memory controller” in Claim 18, this limitation does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g). With regard to the additional limitations which recite, “the flag indicating a degree of deterioration of the threshold voltage distributions” in Claim 18, this limitation does nothing more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the “a memory cell array including a plurality of cell areas, wherein memory cells of each of the cell areas are configured to be in a plurality of threshold voltage distributions,” “a control logic configured to control a calculation operation for an appropriate read level, based on searching for a valley of the threshold voltage distributions, in response to an error occurring in a read operation on the cell areas,” and “a counting operation on data read by using a plurality of read levels” elements of Claim 1; the “in response to an error existing in data read from a first cell area of a memory cell array, entering a valley search mode based on control by a memory controller” and “in relation to the first cell area and based on a counting operation on the data read by using a plurality of read levels” elements of Claim 11; and “a memory cell array including a plurality of cell areas, wherein memory cells of each of the cell areas are configured to be in a plurality of threshold voltage distributions” and “in response to an error occurring in a read operation on the cell areas, a control logic configured to control a calculation operation” elements of Claim 18; these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements which recite the “memory cell array” and “control logic” in Claims 1 and 18, and the “memory controller” of Claim 11, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using well-known, routine and conventional generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “output a flag to a memory controller” step in Claim 18 is a type of “Storing and retrieving information in memory”, which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, Claims 1, 11 and 18 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101.
With regard to the individual dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites, “the counting values comprise first through fourth counting values respectively corresponding to first through fourth read levels.”
These limitations of Claim 2 do nothing more than generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and they cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 further recites, “the control logic is configured to model… and the control logic is configured to calculate”
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to, further model an Mth-order function”
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to calculate”
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to select… and determine”
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to, change the search area, in response to a slope of one linear function modeled based on read levels having relatively low levels among the first through Nth read levels being identical to a sign of the slope of another linear function modeled, based on the read levels having relatively high levels among the first through Nth read levels.”
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to, in response to the error occurring in a first cell area among the cell areas, read data of a second cell area including a word line adjacent to the first cell area, based on control by a memory controller, and calculate… and calculate… and calculate”
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the control logic comprises a first table configured to store information about the compensation values under a high temperature environment condition, and a second table configured to store information about the compensation values under a low temperature environment condition, in response to an absolute value of a slope of at least one linear function being less than a second reference value, the control logic is configured to calculate… and in response to the absolute value of the slope of the at least one linear function being equal to or greater than the second reference value, the control logic is configured calculate.”
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to generate a flag indicating a degree of deterioration of the threshold voltage distributions, based on comparison of the valley height to one or more threshold values, and wherein the memory device is configured to output the flag to a memory controller.”
Claim 10 recites, “in response to an uncorrectable error correction code (UECC) occurring in the read operation, the control logic is configured to perform an operation of calculating”
Claim 12 recites, “performing a re-reading operation on the first cell area by using the calculated appropriate read level.”
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the memory device further comprises a table configured to store the compensation value corresponding to the valley height.”
Claim 16 recites, “outputting, to the memory controller, a flag indicating a degree of deterioration of the first cell area based on a value of the valley height; and as a value of the valley height exceeds a certain threshold value, outputting soft decision (SD) data determined by using at least one offset level to the memory controller and based on control by the memory controller.”
Claim 17 recites, “in response to an uncorrectable error correction code (UECC) occurring in a read operation on the first cell area, the method further includes calculating”
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the control logic is configured to generate the flag based on comparison of a value”
Claim 20 recites, “in response to the degree of deterioration being less than a first threshold value, the control logic is configured to calculate… and based on at least some of the first through Nth read levels and counting values corresponding thereto, the control logic is configured to calculate… and in response to the degree of deterioration exceeding a second threshold value greater than the first threshold value, the control logic is configured to perform, based on control by the memory controller, a read reclaim operation of copying data of a cell block where the error occurs to another cell block.”
These limitations of Claims 2-10, 12, 15-17 and 19-20 recite further elements at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and they cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 2 further recites, “model one linear function based on the first and second counting values respectively corresponding to the first and second read levels, and to model at least one other linear function based on the third and fourth counting values respectively corresponding to the third and fourth read levels, and … calculate the crossing point of two modeled linear functions.”
Claim 3 further recites, “model an Mth-order function based on at least some of the first through fourth read levels and the counting values corresponding thereto (where M is an integer equal to or greater than 2), and calculate the appropriate read level by applying a compensation value calculated, based on at least one of the read level and the valley height corresponding to the coordinate value of the crossing point, to the read level calculated by using the Mth-order function.”
Claim 4 further recites, “calculate the compensation value based on the valley height corresponding to the coordinate value of the crossing point, and the compensation value increases as a value of the valley height increases.”
Claim 5 further recites, “select the first through Nth read levels for modeling the at least two linear functions in a search area having a certain level range, and determine information related to a slope of each of the at least two linear functions, and change a level range of the search area, based on the determined information.”
Claim 7 further recites, “calculate a read level of the first cell area, based on the threshold voltage distributions of memory cells of the second cell area, and calculate a compensation value based on the coordinate value of the crossing point calculated for the first area, and calculate the appropriate read level of the first area by applying the calculated compensation value to the read level calculated, based on the threshold voltage distributions of the second cell area.”
Claim 8 further recites, “calculate the compensation value with reference to the first table, and… calculate the compensation value with reference to the second table”
Claim 10 further recites, “calculating the appropriate read level is performed in response to a command from a memory controller.”
Claim 13 recites, “wherein the read level calculated by using the Mth-order function is a read level corresponding to an input to cause an output of the Mth-order function to have a value based on a minimum value, and wherein the compensation value is calculated based on at least one of the read level and a valley height corresponding to a coordinate value of a crossing point of the one linear function and the at least one other linear function.”
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the Mth-order function is based on a quadratic function modeled, and is based on three read levels selected from the first through fourth read levels and the counting values corresponding thereto.”
Claim 17 further recites, “calculating the appropriate read level in response to a command from the memory controller.”
Claim 19 further recites, “comparison of a value of a valley height to one or more threshold values, the valley height corresponding to the coordinate value of the crossing point.”
Claim 20 further recites, “calculate a read level from an Mth-order function modeled, and… calculate the appropriate read level of the cell areas by applying calculated compensation value based on the coordinate value of the crossing point to the read level.”
These limitations of Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 17 and 19-20, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out this function through observation, evaluation judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As such, for the reasons discussed above, dependent Claims 2-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Yu et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0096423) discloses a semiconductor memory system having memory cells wherein variable read voltages are used to perform read operations, and further wherein a read voltage tracking operation is used to calculate a valley value with respect to threshold voltage distributions.
Yoon et al. (US Patent 10,163,518) discloses a read method for a nonvolatile memory device for reading data with an optimum read voltage, wherein reading data includes performing an on-chip valley search (OVS) operation on a first valley of two adjacent threshold voltage distributions of the first set of memory cells when reading memory pages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J SIMONETTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7702. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10AM-6PM 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, Arpan Savla can be reached at (571) 272-1077. 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.
/NICHOLAS J SIMONETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights