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
This action is responsive to amendment filed 10/23/2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment, and canceled claims 6,10,12, and added new claims 21-23. Claims 1-5,7-9,11,13-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/23/25, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 102 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made based on Ghosh in view of Feng.
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 1-5,7-9,11,13-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Each of claims 1,19,20 recite the amended limitation “receive… an indication of data to be written…”. This limitation appears incomplete and disconnected from the rest of the claim. Neither the indication, nor the data are relevant to the rest of the other claim elements. There is no relevance or functional interdependence that established between the steps. Accordingly, the claim appears incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim and are thus rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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.
Claims 1-5,7-9,11,13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US Publication 20170061832) in view of Feng et al (US Publication 20200313881).
In reference to claim 1, Ghosh teaches a memory system, comprising:
one or more memory devices; one or more interfaces; (see at least ¶s 65,67)
receive, at the memory system, an indication of a cryptographic operation to perform at the memory system; (see at least ¶ 194, which teaches receiving a request for performing a cryptographic function)
perform, based at least in part on receiving the indication of the cryptographic operation, the cryptographic operation using one or more cryptographic primitives at the memory system; (see at least ¶s 191,195, which teaches performing the cryptographic function using one or more primitives) and
output, from the memory system, an indication of a result of the cryptographic operation based at least in part on performing the cryptographic operation using the one or more cryptographic primitives at the memory system (see at least ¶s 197,198, which teaches outputting a result of the cryptographic operation based on the primitives).
Ghosh fails to explicitly teach one or more memory devices; one or more interfaces configured for communication with a host system; and one or more controllers of the memory system, the one or more controllers configured to cause the memory system to: receive, at the memory system via the one or more interfaces, an indication of data to be written to one or more memory cells of the one or more memory devices. However, Feng teaches a memory system that interfaces with a host device, and teaches a controller that manages the memory for receiving, via the interface, data and operations to perform at the memory, and also to output a result to the host device (see Feng, at least ¶s 23,33,46-48 & Figs 1,6,7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ghosh based on the teachings of Feng for the purpose of performing operations in a dedicated system that handles the operations in a secure and efficient manner.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 202-204, which teaches generating a random/digest value using entropy source information, where the result of the cryptographic function is the ransom/digest value.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 82,136, which teaches receive the set of entropy source information used to generate the value.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 72,79, which teaches the set of information is available prior to request for the cryptographic function.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 82,136, which teaches the set of information is input data for the cryptographic primitives.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 64,68, which teaches the data is available prior to request for the cryptographic function.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶ 51, which teaches generating an authentication code using a set f data and a cryptographic key.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 45,50, which teaches receiving the data for generating the authentication code.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 64,75, which teaches data is available prior to request for the cryptographic function.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 45,50, which teaches the set of information is input data for the cryptographic primitives.
In reference to claim 11, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 64,75, which teaches the data is available prior to request for the cryptographic function.
In reference to claim 12, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 51,135, which teaches outputting the authentication code.
In reference to claim 13, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 44,45,51, which teaches verification of the authentication code.
In reference to claim 14, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 150-152,161, which teaches generating a cryptographic key for a cryptographic primitive.
In reference to claim 15, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶s 149 lines 1-20 and ¶ 150, which teaches receiving information to generate the cryptographic key.
In reference to claim 16, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶ 52, which teaches encrypt data using a cryptographic primitive.
In reference to claim 17, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶ 149 lines 1-20, which teaches store the encrypted data and an indication that the cryptographic function is complete.
In reference to claim 18, this is taught by Ghosh, see at least ¶ 154, which teaches output the encrypted data.
In reference to claim 21, Feng teaches receiving indications for data for the memory and cryptographic operations (see Feng, at least ¶s 35,46-48). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ghosh based on the teachings of Feng in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 22, Feng teaches receiving via interfaces, indications for data for the memory and cryptographic operations (see Feng, at least ¶s 23,40,46). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ghosh based on the teachings of Feng in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
In reference to claim 23, Feng teaches implementing on a single ICC chip (see Feng, at least ¶s 23,27). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ghosh based on the teachings of Feng in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Claims 19,20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1-18 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See previous Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights