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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/10/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12,019,900 and US 11,321,008 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 11-18 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 11 recites “an external memory controller” then “an input/output controller” and later recites “a controller” which introduces some lack of clarity of the antecedent and also it is not clear which of these ties to the various controllers of the disclosure (i.e. those in Figure 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5, 8, 9, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snyder (US 6,661,724) in view of Fai (US 2012/0224425).
Regarding claim 2, Snyder discloses a method, comprising: sensing, at a host device (see Figure 2, e.g. 210+220+230+240+250), a temperature of the host device (via 230); determining, at the host device, a respective value of one or more parameters (e.g. time 288) for operating a memory device (e.g. 270) based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see Figure 4); and transmitting signaling (clock 250) from the host device to the memory device based at least in part on determining the respective value of the one or more parameters (via transformation).
Snyder fails to teach expressly that a temperature of the memory device is actively “identified at the host device”. However, as Fai teaches (see paragraph 0036) it was known at the time of filing to identify memory temperatures based at least in part on the temperature of the host sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the more granular approach of memory temperature inference to achieve more accurate and flexible temperature reading.
Regarding claim 3, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more timing parameters (time 288) for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Regarding claim 4, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a temperature decrease of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see Figure 5C); and decreasing a value of an access time (program/erase pulse time of 40C decreases with temperature) based at least in part on determining the temperature decrease.
Regarding claim 5, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining temperature increase of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; increasing a value of an access time (program/erase pulse time of 40C increases with temperature), based at least in part on determining the temperature increase.
Regarding claim 8, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more frequency parameters (see column 6, lines 25+ programmable clock) for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Regarding claim 9, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a temperature increase of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; and reducing one or more frequencies for operating the memory device based at least in part on determining the temperature increase (see Figure 5c, 40C line temp increases, pulse width/frequency decreases).
Regarding claim 20, Snyder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see column 8, lines 28+) storing code comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a host device, cause the host device to perform the method taught above.
Regarding claim 21, Snyder discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein, to determine the respective value of the one or more parameters, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the host device, cause the host device to: determining a respective value of one or more timing parameters, one or more voltage parameters (see rejections above), for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornwell (US 2007/0174642) in view of Fai (US 2012/0224425).
Regarding claim 2, Cornwell discloses a method (and related device), comprising: sensing, at a host device (e.g. 215+140), a temperature of the host device (see paragraph 0020, 0042 “near” “around” the flash memory); determining, at the host device, a respective value of one or more parameters (operating voltages) for operating a memory device (e.g. 205+210+230) based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; and transmitting signaling from the host device to the memory device based at least in part on determining the respective value of the one or more parameters (see paragraph 0042, “send adjusted command”).
Cornwell fails to teach expressly that a temperature of the memory device is actively “identified at the host device”. However, as Fai teaches (see paragraph 0036) it was known at the time of filing to identify memory temperatures based at least in part on the temperature of the host sensor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to use the more granular approach of memory temperature inference to achieve more accurate and flexible temperature reading.
Regarding claim 6, Cornwell discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more voltage parameters for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Cornwell discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more voltage parameters comprise one or more reference voltages, one or more bias voltages (operating voltage), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 20, Cornwell discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see paragraph 0046) storing code comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a host device, cause the host device to perform the method taught above.
Regarding claim 21, Cornwell discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein, to determine the respective value of the one or more parameters, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the host device, cause the host device to: determining a respective value of one or one or more voltage parameters, or one or more frequency parameters, or a combination thereof for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see rejections above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the record makes clear the reasons for allowance.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are thought to be fully addressed by the modified rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 571-272-1869. 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.
/DOUGLAS KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
