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 .
Response to Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 18 March 2026:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 12 and 17 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claim 21 is added.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, Line 3, “obtaining an information item used associated with a public key…” should read “obtaining an information item
In Claim 6, Line 5, “receiving the nonce in addition to the host signature and public key” should read “receiving the nonce in addition to the host signature and the public key”
In Claim 12, Line 7, “executing the custom memory function each of the subset of memory devices…” should read “executing the custom memory function at each of the subset of memory devices…”
In Claim 17, Line 6, “executing the custom memory function each of the subset of memory devices…” should read “executing the custom memory function at each of the subset of memory devices…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-21 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 application regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the custom memory function” in line 4, as to what custom memory function the claim is referring to. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “an authentication” in line 10, as to whether this authentication of the host signature is the same authentication that is performed earlier in the claimed limitations. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a server” in line 3, as to whether this server is the same server recited in independent claim 1. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the custom memory function” in line 7, as to what custom memory function the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in lines 2-3, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in line 4, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in line 3, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the electronic system” in line 5, as to what electronic system the claim is referring to. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the custom memory function” in line 6, as to what custom memory function the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in line 3, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in line 2, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. It is further unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “a set of memory devices coupled to the host device” in line 3, as to whether this set of memory devices is the same as the subset of memory devices coupled to the host device. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear due to the lack of antecedent basis for “the memory device” in line 2, as to which memory device the claim is referring to. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Regarding claims 3, 5-11, 14 and 21, the claims are rejected because they are dependent to a previous rejected claim.
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-21 are allowed, assuming Applicant overcomes the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, as well as the claim objections.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to enabling custom features using public key infrastructure in memory devices.
a. CUI et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2015/0180662) discloses a software key updating method which involves updating software and memory functionality using a public key.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. 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.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
Prosecution Insights