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. DETAILED ACTION The action is in response to claims dated 8/13/2023. Claims pending in the case: 1, 4-9, 12-15, 18-26 Cancelled claims: 2-3, 10-11, 16-17 Added claims: 21-26 C laim I nterpretation 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: “ the memory controller comprising: …. and a Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform ….” in claims 9 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. All claims dependent on the claims identified above are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies. 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. A review of the specification shows that the specification does not indicate a corresponding structure to perform at least some of the specific functions in the claim. The attempt to interpret the claimed limitations under 112(f) have failed. Hence please refer to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below. The applicant is thus requested to provide explanation of the corresponding structure. 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 9, 12-14, 21-23 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. As described above, the disclosure does not appear to provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of a Memory Training Engine (MTE) . The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim (s) 9, 12-14, 21-23 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 limitation “ the memory controller comprising: …. and a Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform …. ” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description does not appear to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. All claims dependent on this/these claim(s) are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the virtue of their respective direct and indirect dependencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 5 -9, 1 3 -15, 1 9 -26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220148631) in view of Su ( CN108881081 – refer to attached for claim mapping) . Lee cited in applicant IDS. Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches, A memory controller comprising: Input/Output interface logic to couple to a memory device having a decision feedback equalization (DFE) circuit (Lee: [27, 43-47, 36, 38]: interface to a memory device) ; and a Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform DFE training to select values of parameters in the DFE circuit of the memory device, the MTE execute a first search type to generate parameters from a limited number of iterations of the first search type as initial … values (Lee: [29, 36]: training circuitry performing memory core parameter training; [54-56]: training operation to obtain parameter values) and to execute a second search … with the initial coefficient values as an initial search point for the second search … to generate global best parameters (Lee: [54-56]: training operation (plurality of search) to obtain final parameter values); However, Lee does not specifically teach, p arameters of tap coefficients for taps ; Su teaches, tap coefficients for taps (Su: [60-61, 63-65]: adjust tap coefficients [70-72]: multiple searches to generate best tap coefficient ); It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combin e the teachings of Lee and Su because the prior arts are in the field of adapting DFE parameters and the combination would enable the adjustment of not only the parameters taught in Lee but also tap coefficients as taught in Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination provides the most effective technique for removing interference (see Su [4]). Regarding claim 5 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the second search type is a Tabu search (Su: [70-72]: search for best tap coefficient by prohibiting change of one variable while changing another). The examiner finds that the search process used in the prior art is very similar to the Tabu search process. Since the limitation broadly claims a search algorithm, t he examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a Tabu search process or any other search process common in the art . Regarding claim 6 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform Decision feedback equalization (DFE) training during initialization of the memory device (Lee: [105]: start by setting to defaults for initialization). Regarding claim 7 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform Decision feedback equalization (DFE) training during operation of the memory device upon changes to continuous time linear equalization (CTLE) (Su: [70]: after finding an optimal compensation value by CTLE, scanning DFE parameters). Regarding claim 8 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, wherein the Memory Training Engine (MTE) to perform Decision feedback equalization (DFE) training during operation of the memory device upon changes to On Die Termination (ODT) (Lee [38]: “ A DFE amount may be provided to subtract the remainder of bit of previously read data DQ to determine a current data bit. Pull-down/ODT and pull-up/Voh calibration may be provided …”). Regarding Claim(s) 9, 1 3 , 21-23 , this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1, 5 - 8 respectively . Ther efore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 14 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 9 a bove and, further comprising one or more of: at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory controller; a display communicatively coupled to at least one processor; or a power supply to provide power to the system (Lee [26-27]: processor , memory) Regarding Claim(s) 15, 1 9 -20 this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 1, 5- 6 . Therefo re, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale. Regarding claim 2 4 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 15 a bove and, wherein executing the first search type comprises performing DFE training during initialization of the memory device (Lee: [105]: start by setting to defaults for initialization) . Regarding claim 25 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 15 a bove and, wherein executing the first search type comprises performing DFE training during operation of the memory device upon changes to continuous time linear equalization (CTLE) (Su: [70]: after finding an optimal compensation value by CTLE, scanning DFE parameters) . Regarding claim 26 , Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 15 a bove and, wherein executing the first search type comprises performing DFE training during operation of the memory device upon changes to On Die Termination (ODT) (Lee [38]: “ A DFE amount may be provided to subtract the remainder of bit of previously read data DQ to determine a current data bit. Pull-down/ODT and pull-up/Voh calibration may be provided …”) . Claim(s) 4, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220148631) in view of Su ( CN108881081 – refer to attached for claim mapping) in view of Graumann ( US 10230552 ) . Regarding claim 4, Lee and Su teach the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and, t he memory controller of claim 1, wherein the first search type is a modified binary search (Su: [70-72]: search for best tap coefficient) . Since the limitation broadly claims a search algorithm , t he examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a binary search process or any other search process common in the art ; Nonetheless, Graumann teaches, using binary search (Graumann: col 5 [1 -2 ]: binary search may be used for DFE tap adaptation ) ; It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combin e the teachings of Lee , Su and Graumann because the prior arts are in the field of adapting DFE parameters and the combination would enable using binary search in the determination process . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because the combination enables using a specific search process used in same field. Regarding Claim(s) 12, 18 , this/these claim(s) is/are similar in scope as claim(s) 4 . Therefore, this/these claim(s) is/are rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in attached 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MANDRITA BRAHMACHARI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9735 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Friday, 11 am to 8 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tamara Kyle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 4241 . 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. /Mandrita Brahmachari/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144