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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “read recovery component” in claims 1-11, either explicitly recited or by virtue of dependency.
Claim 20 recites “means for” language and is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rayaprolu et al. (2021/0042181).
Regarding claims 1 and 20:
Rayaprolu teaches:
A memory device [Fig 1 – memory sub-system], comprising:
one or more memory arrays [Fig 1 – memory device; par 22 – memory components can be, for example, NAND]; and
a read recovery component coupled to the one or more memory arrays [par 27 – error control component], wherein the read recovery component is configured to:
reorder a first sequence of read recovery operations to generate a second sequence of the read recovery operations by moving a first read recovery operation in the first sequence to a different position in the second sequence [par 27, 30-32, 43, 44 – the order of the error control operations, which correspond to the read recovery operations of the claim, is changed to result in a second sequence by reordering the operations and/or removing operations from the prioritized sequence] based at least in part on:
whether a quantity of times that the first read recovery operation has resulted in successful read failure recovery satisfies a threshold [par 32, 43, 44 – recovery operation can be removed from the prioritized sequence of operations, thereby changing the sequence of operations, based on a success rate equals or exceeds a threshold rate. The plain meaning of a success rate is a quantity of successes in relation to total operations, thus meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the quantity of times of the claim] or
a flag associated with the first read recovery operation; and
perform a read recovery process based at least in part on the second sequence of the read recovery operations [par 32, 43, 44 – subsequent errors are recovery using the altered order of error control operations].
Regarding claim 2:
Rayaprolu teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein each of the read recovery operations corresponds to a read reference voltage shift or an error correction algorithm [par 29 – can be any of a number of operations, including different read voltages and various correction algorithms].
Regarding claim 3:
Rayaprolu teaches:
The memory device of claim 2, wherein the error correction algorithm comprises a redundant array of independent NAND (RAIN) recovery process, a redundant array of independent disks (RAID) recovery process, a second sync byte pattern (SB2) decoding process, a low density parity check (LDPC) recovery process, a corrective read process, or an automatic calibration recovery process [par 29].
Regarding claim 4:
Rayaprolu teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein the read recovery component is configured to perform the read recovery process to recover from a read failure [par 29].
Regarding claim 7:
Rayaprolu teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein to reorder the first sequence, the read recovery component is configured to: move the first read recovery operation to an initial position in the second sequence based at least in part on the quantity of times that the first read recovery operation has resulted in the successful read failure recovery satisfying the threshold; or
move the first read recovery operation to a position in the second sequence other than the initial position based at least in part on the quantity of times that the first read recovery operation has resulted in the successful read failure recovery not satisfying the threshold [par 32, 43, 44 – removed from the prioritized sequence based on being below the threshold].
Regarding claim 11:
Rayaprolu teaches:
The memory device of claim 1, wherein to perform the read recovery process, the read recovery component is configured to perform one or more read recovery operations in an order that is defined by the second sequence of the read recovery operations [par 32, 43, 44].
Regarding claims 12-15 and 17:
The claims are rejected as the methods of using the systems of claims 1-4 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayaprolu in view of Ren (2022/0148671).
Regarding claim 5:
See the teachings of Rayaprolu outlined above.
Rayaprolu does not explicitly teach the read failure comprising a page read error associated with a page type of the one or more memory arrays. Rayaprolu does, however, teach a read failure of a NAND memory and teaches applying different read voltages to correct read failures [par 22, 29].
Ren teaches a read failure comprising a page read error associated with a page type of one or more memory arrays [par 84 – there is a table of voltage shifts per page of the memory device, thus it is necessarily true that the voltage shifts are associated with a page type, as each page necessarily has a page type].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the page read error associated with a page type of Ren with the read recovery of Rayaprolu.
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have been motivated to make the combination because Rayaprolu teaches applying different read voltages to mitigate a read failure but does not provide details regarding the operation, creating an implicit need for such details. Ren meets that implicit need.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination teaches:
The memory device of claim 5, wherein the page type comprises a lower page, an upper page, an extra page, or a top page of a memory cell that is configured to store multiple bits [Ren par 65, 81].
Regarding claim 16:
The claim is rejected as the method of using the device of claim 6.
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, 2, 4, 7-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 12-18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12386689. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘689 claims contain all teachings of the instant claims and thus anticipate the instant claims.
Claim 1 is exemplary:
Instant claim
‘689 claim language
Explanation, as needed
A memory device, comprising
A memory device
one or more memory arrays;
A memory device
Consulting the specification and drawings of the ‘689 patent, it is clear a memory device as defined by the patent contains one or more memory arrays (see at least fig 2)
and a read recovery component coupled to the one or more memory arrays, wherein the read recovery component is configured to:
one or more components configured to:
A component that is configured to perform the actions performed by the read recovery component of the instant claims is clearly a read recovery component, as a ”read recovery component” is defined solely by the actions it is configured to perform
reorder a first sequence of read recovery operations to generate a second sequence of the read recovery operations by moving a first read recovery operation in the first sequence to a different position in the second sequence based at least in part on:
reorder a first sequence of read reference voltage shifts to generate a second sequence of read reference voltage shifts by moving a first read reference voltage shift in the first sequence to a different position in the second sequence based at least in part on:
Read reference voltage shifts are read recovery operations. The instant claim has been broadened by removing the specific type of operation.
whether a quantity of times that the first read recovery operation has resulted in successful read failure recovery satisfies a threshold,
whether a quantity of times that the first read reference voltage shift has resulted in successful read failure recovery satisfies a threshold,
See above with respect the read reference voltage shift
or a flag associated with the first read recovery operation;
whether a flag that is associated with the first read reference voltage shift is set to an enabled state or a disabled state
Instant claim removes limitations from the patent claim
and perform a read recovery process based at least in part on the second sequence of the read recovery operations.
and perform one or more read reference voltage shifts to recover from a read failure, wherein the one or more read reference voltage shifts are performed in an order that is defined by the second sequence of read reference voltage shifts.
Instant claim removes limitations from the patent claim
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner notes that claim 8-10, 18, and 19 are rejected solely under non-statutory double patenting. If the double patenting rejection were to be obviated, these claims would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Pertinent Prior Art
‘767 to Yang discloses reading from a NAND. If the read fails, access a read-retry table to determine read retry voltages to attempt recovery. If the recovery is successful, perform an adaptive sort of the read retry table based on statistical data of successful recoveries, where a success count is used to inform the adaptive sort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC M DUNCAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3646. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 730am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/MARC DUNCAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights