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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line contains an extra period. 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 2, 4-5, 12-15, and 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “during read operations” in line 4. It is unclear if it is intended to refer to the same read operations of claim 1, line 10.
Claims 4-5 depend from claim 2, and do not resolve the deficiencies of the parent claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “during read operations” in line 5. It is unclear if it is intended to refer to the same read operations of claim 10, line 6.
Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12, and do not resolve the deficiencies of the parent claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second data" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17, and do not resolve the deficiencies of the parent claim, and are therefore also rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, and 16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 1, no prior art of record teaches “circuitry to configure the first memory device to transmit the second data strobe signal to the memory controller via the single pair of signal conductors, and to configure each other memory device of the at least two separate memory devices to be disabled from transmitting the second data strobe signal via the single pair of signal conductors while the first memory device transmits the second data strobe signal,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
With respect to independent claim 10, no prior art of record teaches “circuitry to configure the first memory device of the plurality of memory devices to transmit the second data strobe signal to the memory controller via the single pair of signal conductors, and to configure each other memory device of the plurality of memory devices to be disabled from transmitting the second data strobe signal via the single pair of signal conductors while the first memory device transmits the second data strobe signal,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
With respect to independent claim 16, no prior art of record teaches “configuring, by the memory controller, a first memory device of the plurality of memory devices to transmit a second data strobe signal to the memory controller via the single pair of signal conductors during read operations; configuring, by the memory controller, each other memory device of the plurality of memory devices to be disabled from transmitting the second data strobe signal via the single pair of signal conductors while the first memory device transmits the second data strobe signal,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
The remaining claims mentioned in the header, but not specifically addressed, depend from the above independent claims and are allowably by virtue of their dependence on the allowed base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stephens, Jr., US Patent 8,897,053 teaches a common data strobe arrangement among DRAMs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN DARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/RYAN DARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights