DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed 2/16/2026 for application 18/655,214 which claims priority to provisional 62/680,434 filed 6/4/2018 and is a continuation of 16/029,253 filed 7/6/2018 which also claim priority to provisional 62/680,434 filed 6/4/2018..
Claims 1, 8, and 14, have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No claims are new. Thus, claims 1-20 have been examined.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
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 (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.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
8. (Currently Amended) (Pdevice, wherein the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device indicates an operating parameter associated with the memory device; and update [[an]]the operating parameter associated with the memory device based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
14. . (Currently Amended) (P the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device indicating an operating parameter of the memory device; and refreshing the memory device at a refresh rate that is based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Ian D. Clouse on 3/6/2026.
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.
Claims 8-13 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitations ‘(Previously Presented) A host device, comprising: circuitry operable to cause the host device to: receive a temperature update flag and information corresponding to a temperature of a memory device, the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device being stored in a mode register of the memory device, wherein the temperature update flag indicates a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device, wherein the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device indicates an operating parameter associated with the memory device; and update the operating parameter associated with the memory device based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.’
First, Examiner notes that claims 8 and 16 are not ‘(Previously Presented)’. They should have been identified as (Currently Amended) in the claim updates.
Examiner further notes that the claimed term “operating parameter” may be interpreted according to para [0009] of the instant application that states ‘various operating parameters of the memory device (e.g., voltage, temperature, device age, etc.) may be utilized to determine an appropriate mode. … a connected host may periodically poll one or more of these operating parameters of a memory device to determine whether to adjust the mode. For example, a connected host may poll the device temperature (e.g., or information corresponding to the device temperature) to determine whether to modify the refresh rate of the device’. Examiner notes that the “operating parameter” is describe as an environment condition that may be measured at the memory device. Examiner notes that “the refresh rate” is not polled by the host, but is a value set by the host. Thus “refresh rate” is not an example of an “operating parameter” in this example. Instead, in this example an operating parameter may be “information corresponding to the device temperature”. Thus this amended claim is claiming a memory device with stored information corresponding to the temperature of the device that is polled by the host and this operating parameter is sent to the host, and wherein the system updates the operating parameter (i.e. the information corresponding to the device temperature) and as a result of sending the information to the host the system updates “stored information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device in the mode register”. Thus the system updates the mode register that is the same value sent to the host. Examiner is unable to find support for updating the mode register in response to sending the data in the mode register to the host, especially given there would be no need to update the data in the mode register as it was updated before sending it to the host in the first place.
Examiner request applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner has treated claim 8 as previously presented.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “The host device of claim 8, wherein the operating parameter associated with the memory device comprises a refresh rate associated with the memory device. Thus the host device receives “a temperature update flag and update information corresponding to a temperature of a memory device, the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device being stored in a mode register… wherein the stored information to the temperature of the memory device indicates an operating parameter associated with the memory device” per claim 8 and “the operating parameter associated with the memory device comprises a refresh rate”. Thus the host is sent both (1) a temperature update flag, and (2) a refresh rate. Examiner notes that the specification notes the host may modify the refresh rate in response to periodically polling the device temperature. See paras [0009] and [0021] of the instant application. However, the memory device does not send to the host a refresh rate. Instead the specification suggests the host sends a refresh rate to the memory device.
Examiner is unable to find support for the memory device storing in a mode register and the host device receiving “information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device” that is an operating parameter that is further defined to be “a refresh rate”.
Examiner request applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Claims 9-13 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from respective base claim 8 that has been rejected and fail to cure the deficiencies of the respective base claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
McCall (McCall et al., US 2016/0284386 A1) in view of Choi (CHOI et al., US 2018/0197599 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A memory device (McCall Fig. 1 and supporting para [0021] discloses system 100 containing memory devices 120 0 to N-1, thus is an example of a memory device.) comprising: a mode register; (McCall [0017] discloses the memory device records sensor data in a mode register.) and circuitry configured to cause the memory device to: (McCall [0087] discloses the components may be implemented as hardwired circuitry.) store information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device in the mode register; (McCall [0017] discloses when sensor data has changed more than a threshold, it sets a flag in a mode register for the host to monitor/check. McCall [0028] discloses the sensor may be within a DRAM that contains a thermal sensor and a flag that is a bit within a Mode Register of the DRAM, thus measures and records the temperature of the memory device and the information is stored in a mode register of the DRAM. McCall [0016] discloses the flag is set in response to detecting a change in temperature. Thus the flag of McCall is an example of a temperature update flag that corresponds to a temperature of the memory device) transmit, to a host device, a temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device, (McCall [0079] teaches the controller periodically checks a temperature update flag stored in the Memory 120, where the memory controller which per McCall [0022] may be integrated within the host processor. Examiner notes that the term ‘corresponding to’ may simply mean relating to, thus the update flag is information corresponding to (relating to) the temperature of the memory device and is stored is transmitted to the host device during the polling process.) the temperature update flag indicating a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device; (McCall [0028] discloses the DRAM may contain thermal sensor data (temperature data) and a flag. McCall [0016] discloses the flag is generated in response to detecting a change in temperature input from the temperature sensor.) the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device indicating an operating parameter of the memory device (Examiner notes that consistent with para [0009] of the instant application an operating parameter of the memory device may be information corresponding to the deice temperature. McCall [0028] discloses the DRAM may contain thermal sensor data (temperature data) and a flag. McCall [0016] discloses the flag is generated in response to detecting a change in temperature input from the temperature sensor and thus is an example of both “information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device and an operating parameter of the memory device.)
and refresh the memory device at a refresh rate that is based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device. (McCall [0016] discloses that the information such as the temperature and flag are traditionally used to adjust operation of self-refresh. Thus the update flag sent to the host and also stored at the memory device 120 is used to refresh the memory device.)
McCall teaches that the sensor data and flag are used to adjust the operation of self-refresh, it does not explicitly teach that his operation is a rate. Thus McCall does not explicitly disclose refresh the memory device at a refresh rate that is based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
Choi, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and refresh the memory device at a refresh rate that is based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
(Choi [0036] teaches as the detected temperature increases, the value of the refresh rate is increased to shorten a refresh period. Thus McCall in view of Choi would use the temperature update flag to recognize the change in temperature and adjust the refresh rate.
McCall and Choi are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to monitoring memory devices to control the device to improve throughput by eliminating unnecessary commands but safeguard memory contents by performing refresh operations only as needed. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention with the solutions of McCall and Choi before them to incorporate adjusting the refresh rate based on temperature as taught by Choi into the solution of McCall that adjusts refresh commands based on a change in temperature that is denoted in a flag. Thus combining prior art elements according to known methods (adjusting the refresh rate in response to a change in temperature as taught by Choi into the solution of McCall that monitors temperature and stores the temperature along with a flag that is set when the temperature changes) to yield predictable results; (enable the system to adjust refresh rates based on the environment, where higher memory temperatures require more frequent refreshes to reliably maintain the data in memory.)
The motivation for combining Choi into McCall for claims 2-3 are the same as those presented in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. McCall further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause the memory device to: (McCall [0087] discloses the components may be implemented as hardwired circuitry.) update the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device based at least in part on identifying that the temperature associated with the memory device has changed. (McCall [0050]-[0051] discloses the memory monitors the sensors (i.e. reads the sensors) and if the value exceeds a threshold it updates the sensor value and sets the flag to indicate that the sensor has changed above a threshold value. McCall [0028] discloses the DRAM may contain thermal sensor data (temperature data) and a flag. Thus setting the flag identifies that the temperature associated with the memory device has changed above the threshold.)
Regarding claim 3, The combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. McCall further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause the memory device to: (McCall [0087] discloses the components may be implemented as hardwired circuitry.) receive a mode register read command to read the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device (McCall [0087] discloses that the memory controller which may be within the host will read the register for the sensor data (i.e. the temperature flag), thus the Memory 120 will receive a mode register read command to read the temperature flag (i.e. information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device). ) based at least in part on the temperature update flag; (McCall [0017], [0028] and [0041] teaches that controller within the host will periodically read the mode register flag set within the Memory 120, thus the read command to read the temperature update flag is received from the host at the Memory 120 based at least in part on the existence of the temperature update flag in the memory device.) wherein the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device is transmitted based at least in part on the mode register read command. (McCall [0079] teaches that the temperature flag in a Mode Register of the memory device is periodically checked by the memory controller that is a component of the host. Thus the temperature flag (stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device) is transmitted to the host based at least in part on the host polling the data by reading the register on the Memory 120 (based on a mode register read command). See also McCall Claim 15 that the data is read across the I/O 112 I/O 122 interface.)
Regarding claim 8, McCall teaches A host device, comprising: circuitry operable to cause the host device to: (McCall [0022]-[0023] discloses host processor, memory controller and memory may be on a single system on a chip (SOC) thus is an example of a host device made up of circuitry that causes the device to perform the actions.) receive a temperature update flag and information corresponding to a temperature of a memory device, (McCall [0028] discloses the sensor may be within a DRAM that contains a thermal sensor and a flag. McCall [0016] discloses the flag is generated in response to detecting a change in temperature input from the temperature sensor. McCall [0079] teaches the controller periodically checks a temperature update flag stored in the Memory 120, where the memory controller which per McCall [0022] may be integrated within the host processor. Thus the host receives a temperature update flag that is information corresponding to a temperature of a memory device and the host receives both an update flag and information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device.)
the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device being stored in a mode register of the memory device, (McCall [0041]-[0042] discloses a mode register 224 in the memory 220 stores the temperature flag)
wherein the temperature update flag indicates a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device; (McCall [0028] discloses the sensor may be within a DRAM that contains a thermal sensor and a flag that is a bit within a Mode Register of the DRAM. McCall [0016] discloses the flag is set in response to detecting a change in temperature.)
McCall [0016] teaches that the information such as the temperature and flag are traditionally used to adjust the operation of self-refresh, but does not explicitly disclose doing so by updating an operating parameter, thus does not explicitly teach and update an operating parameter associated with the memory device based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
Choi, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches and update an operating parameter associated with the memory device based at least in part on the temperature update flag and the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device. (Choi [0036] teaches as the detected temperature increases, the value of the refresh rate is increased to shorten a refresh period. Choi [0086] teaches the refresh period is an operating parameter sent by the controller to the device. Thus McCall in view of Choi would update a refresh rate operating parameter controlled by the host based on the temperature update flag that is information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.)
McCall and Choi are in a similar field of endeavor as both relate to monitoring memory devices to control the device to improve throughput by eliminating unnecessary commands but safeguard memory contents by performing refresh operations only as needed. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention with the solutions of McCall and Choi before them to incorporate adjusting the refresh rate parameter based on temperature and its associated flag as taught by Choi into the solution of McCall that adjusts refresh commands based on a change in temperature that is denoted in a flag. Thus combining prior art elements according to known methods (adjusting the refresh rate in response to a change in temperature as taught by Choi into the solution of McCall that monitors temperature and stores the temperature along with a flag that is set when the temperature changes) to yield predictable results; (enable the system to adjust refresh rates based on the environment, where higher memory temperatures require more frequent refreshes to reliably maintain the data in memory.)
The motivation for combining Choi into McCall for claims 9 and 13 are the same as those presented in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 9, McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. McCall further teaches wherein the circuitry is further operable to cause the host device to: (McCall [0087] discloses the components may be implemented as hardwired circuitry.) transmit a mode register read command to read the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device is received (McCall [0087] discloses that the memory controller which may be on the host will read the register for the sensor data (i.e. the temperature flag), thus the Memory 120 will receive a mode register read command transmitted by the host to read the temperature flag (i.e. information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device). ) based at least in part on the temperature update flag; (McCall [0017], [0028] and [0041] teaches that controller within the host will periodically read the mode register flag set within the Memory 120, thus the read command to read the temperature update flag is received based at least in part on the existence of the temperature update flag in the memory device.)
wherein the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device is received based at least in part on the mode register read command. (McCall [0079] teaches that the temperature flag in a Mode Register of the memory device is periodically checked by the memory controller that is a component of the host. Thus the temperature flag (stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device) is transmitted to the host based at least in part on the host polling the data by reading the register on the Memory 120 (based on a mode register read command from the host based on the existence of the flag in the memory device). See also McCall Claim 15 that the data is read across the I/O 112 I/O 122 interface.)
Regarding claim 13, McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above.
Choi further teaches wherein the operating parameter associated with the memory device comprises a refresh rate associated with the memory device. (Choi [0036] teaches as the detected temperature increases, the value of the refresh rate is increased to shorten a refresh period. Choi [0086] teaches the refresh period is an operating parameter sent by the controller to the device.)
The motivation to combine Choi into McCall is the same as set forth in claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 14, McCall teaches A method by a memory device, comprising: (McCall [0083] discloses that the apparatus can implement the method described.) McCall [0022]-[0023] discloses host processor, memory controller and memory may be on a single system on a chip (SOC) thus is an example of a memory device)
The remainder of claim 14 recites limitations described in claim 1 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above.
The remainder of claim 15 recites limitations described in claim 2 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above.
The remainder of claim 16 recites limitations described in claim 3 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 3 above.
Claims 4-7, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCall (McCall et al., US 2016/0284386 A1) in view of Choi (CHOI et al., US 2018/0197599 A1) as detailed in claims 1-3, 8-9, and 13-16 above and further in view of Ross (Ross US 2019/0369893 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. However, the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the temperature update flag comprises a voltage at an external terminal of the memory device that persists for a predetermined duration or until a predetermined response is received from a connected host device.
Ross, of a similar field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the temperature update flag comprises a voltage at an external terminal of the memory device that persists for a predetermined duration or until a predetermined response is received from a connected host device. (This limitation is met when one of the two options is disclosed. Examiner discloses a voltage that persists for a predetermined duration. Ross [0022] discloses that one approach to polling may be a dedicated command to the memory device to perform a mode register read operation and to output the value on the data bus of the memory device. Ross [0025] discloses in response to a temperature update the memory device can send a temperature update flag “TUF” that can last a predetermined number of cycles of the memory clock 410. See also Ross claims 1-5 that discloses information relating to temperature may be held as a voltage for a predetermined duration. )
McCall, Choi, and Ross are all in a similar field of endeavor as all relate to managing memory device temperatures. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to incorporate the predetermined duration of the temperature as taught by Ross into the solution of McCall and Choi that monitors the temperature of a device, thus combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (to notify the system monitoring the device asynchronously, where asynchronous notifications occur immediately and polling methods involve a delay due to the fact the values are only checked every polling interval.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of McCall, Choi, and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above.
Ross further teaches wherein the circuitry is further configured to cause the memory device to: terminate the voltage at the external terminal of the memory device based at least in part on the predetermined duration or the predetermined response being satisfied. (Ross Fig. 4 and paras [0022] and [0025] that discloses the voltage for the TUF signal 415 is terminated after the predetermined period of time )
The motivation to combine Ross into the existing solution is the same as set forth in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, , the combination of McCall, Choi, and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above.
Ross further teaches wherein the predetermined response comprises a mode register read command to read the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device. (Ross Fig. 4 and [0025] discloses that in response to the temperature update flag being set the host may send a mode register read command comprising a first MRR1 portion 421 and a second MRR2 portion 422 that corresponds to the temperature of the memory device.)
The motivation to combine Ross into the existing solution is the same as set forth in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, , the combination of McCall, Choi and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above.
Ross further teaches wherein the predetermined duration comprises a predetermined quantity of clock cycles. (Ross [0025] discloses in response to updating a temperature flag the memory device can send a temperature update flag “TUF” that can last a predetermined number of cycles of the memory clock 410. See also Ross claims 1-5 that discloses information relating to temperature may be held as a voltage for a predetermined duration. )
The motivation to combine Ross into the existing combination is the same as set forth in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above.
The remainder of claim 10 recites limitations described in claim 4 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of McCall, Choi and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above.
The remainder of claim 11 recites limitations described in claim 6 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of McCall, Choi and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above.
The remainder of claim 12 recites limitations described in claim 7 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of McCall and Choi teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above.
The remainder of claim 17 recites limitations described in claim 4 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of McCall, Choi, and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above.
The remainder of claim 18 recites limitations described in claim 5 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of McCall, Choi, an Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above.
The remainder of claim 19 recites limitations described in claim 6 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of McCall, Choi, and Ross teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above.
The remainder of claim 20 recites limitations described in claim 7 above and thus is rejected based on the teachings and rationale of claim 7 above.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is:
A definition of corresponding from the Cambridge dictionary that indicates a corresponding may be interpreted as happening as a result of something that you just mentioned, such as pressures lead to employee exhausting with corresponding declines in productivity. Thus a temperature update flag is an example of information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device.
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks applicant for their claim amendments and remarks of 2/16/2026. They have been fully considered. However they are not persuasive in light of the claim rejections detailed above and remarks detailed below.
35 U.S.C 103
Applicant argues on page 6 of their remarks that McCall, Choi, and Ross alone or in any combination do not teach or suggest “storing information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device in the mode register” and “transmit[ting], to a host device, a temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device, the temperature updating flag indicating a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device,” as recited in independent claim 1. ‘According to McCall, “triggering the compensation flag signal comprises setting a value in a Mode Register of the memory device to be checked periodically the by the memory controller.” Id. ¶ [0079]. …. McCall, however, does not teach or suggest “stor[ing] information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device in the mode register” and “transmit[ting], to a host device, a temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device, the temperature update flag indicating a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device,” as recited in independent claim 1. Rather, the cited portions of McCall describe the memory controller 110 periodically reading only the flag 126 from the mode register. Therefore, McCall does not teach or suggest “stor[ing] information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device in the mode register,” as recited in independent claim 1.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the specification does not disclose that the temperature update flag is separate from “information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device”, as applicant appears to argue. See ¶ [0050] of the instant application that states “Turning to FIG. 4 … As can be seen with reference to FIG. 4 , the memory device can, in response to updating information in a mode register thereof, send to a connected host a notification, such as notification 416, on an external terminal of the device, such as the temperature update flag “TUF” terminal 415.” The system is sending a single value labeled TUF, or TUF_1 or TUF_2. See also paras [0026]-[0029] of the instant application. The “information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device” may be the “temperature update flag” and there may be only one value sent to the host. Thus it is not correct to state that McCall id sending only the flag 126 therefore McCall is not sending “information corresponding to a temperature of the device” given “information corresponding to a temperature of the device” may be a “temperature update flag”.
Applicant further argues on page 8 of their remarks “Further, McCall does not describe transmitting both “the temperature update flag indicating a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device and “the stored information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device,” as recited in independent claim 1. Put another way, McCalls periodical retrieval of a one-bit flag is not same as and fails to teach or suggest “transmit[ting], to a host device, a temperature update flag and the stored information corresponding to temperature of the memory device, the temperature update flag indicating a change in the information corresponding to the temperature of the memory device,” as recited in independent claim 1. Thus McCall does not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features of independent claim 1.’
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Per MPEP 2111 In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("During patent examination the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow."); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) The court explained that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ‘reading limitations of the specification into a claim,’ to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in the claim…. Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. In contrast, an examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified.’
As noted above, and consistent with paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and [0050] of the instant application “information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device” may be the “temperature update flag”. If applicant wishes, for example the “information corresponding to a temperature of the memory device” to be the temperature of the memory device the claim can be amended to claim “transmit, to a host device, a temperature update flag and the temperature of the memory device”, assuming that the specification supports the change. Examiner requests applicant provide explicitly citations for any claim amendments. As noted in the rejection above, the term ‘corresponding to’ may simply mean relating to, thus the update flag is information corresponding to (relating to) the temperature of the memory device and is stored is transmitted to the host device during the polling process. See the NPL attached to this office action 1/16/2026 where Merriam Webster defines corresponding as “b: related, accompanying: individual rights and their corresponding responsibilities”. Thus something that is ”corresponding” to something may simply be something that is “related” to something. A temperature update flag is related to a temperature of the memory flag as it is modified when the temperature is modified.
Applicants arguments with respect to independent claims 8 and 14 all rely on arguments similar to those presented in independent claim 1 and thus are rejected based on similar rationale as those presented in claim 1 above.
Applicants arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 14-2 rely upon perceived errors in their respective base claims and thus have been addressed in the arguments to the base claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138