DETAILED ACTION
As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments.
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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Amendment, filed 04-09-2026. The changes and remarks disclosed therein have been considered.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 11 has/have been amended, claim(s) 9 has/have been cancelled, and claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 remain(s) pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 is/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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 11 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “the voltage is 0.5 times or less than a voltage applied to the third power source or the fourth power source”, where “the voltage” lacks antecedent basis, and it is unclear if “a voltage” is different than “the voltage”. Examiner suggests amending the claims to read as something like --the voltage of the first power source or the second power source is 0.5 times or less than a different voltage applied to the third power source or the fourth power source--.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive.
The Anaashari disclosure is not limited in phase change elements, as disclosed in Anaashari column 16, lines 30-63, and the claimed invention does not limit itself to phase change elements, as recited in claim 5. Nor does the claimed invention recite its intended use of mitigating “read disturb”, which is not disclosed in the specification, or preventing an unintended phase change in the claims. It is impermissible for the examiner in read limitations from the disclosure into the claimed subject matter, and there arguments relating thereto are unpersuasive.
Examiner agrees that Onkaraiah only gives the magnitudes of the programming voltages which pass through the resistive elements, and does not detail the magnitudes at which their respective power supplies are biased.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8, 10, and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME LARRY LEBOEUF whose telephone number is (571)272-7612. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00AM - 6:00PM 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, RICHARD ELMS can be reached at (517)272-1869. 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.
/JEROME LEBOEUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 - 06/12/2026
Prosecution Insights