DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant's amendments filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are amended and claims 3 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-17, 19, and 20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive. Applicant's arguments are summarized below:
Applicant submits that claims 1-20 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant requests the withdrawal of 112(b) rejection in light of the amendment.
Applicant requests to the withdrawal of 102 rejection in light of the argument/amendment.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with B.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn in view of applicant's amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is maintained.
"See the rejection explained in detail below."
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) havebeen fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1,2, 4-17, 19 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “obtaining information about a detected memory error in a memory device, the memory device being connected to a first host via a compute express link (CXL) interface, wherein the first host communicates with the memory device based on a data object exchange (DOE) interface; and recording the memory error information into a firmware of the memory device”. The term “based on” does not narrow the claim because it does not indicate any step performed. Overall, the claim appears to have many missing elements among the limitations stated. There isn't a complete thought process or flow throughout the claim. Essential elements appear to be missing from the claims that are necessary to make the claim complete and clear as a whole. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the claim language has some issues as described above that needed amends. Further, there is not clear criteria of communication between the first host with the memory device based on a data object exchange (DOE) interface. What specifically does the “data object exchange (DOE) interface”? Is it reporting or injecting errors into the CXL memory device? Furthermore, interconnections between the two interfaces (compute express link (CXL) and the data object exchange (DOE)) and further with the step of recording the memory error information into a firmware of the memory device are extremely confusing and for the most part not detailed or mentioned in the claim. It is difficult to translate the claim and follow what processes are taking place.
Independent claims 16 and 20 include similar limitations of independent claim 1 andtherefore are rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
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 /ESAW T ABRAHAM/ 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 THREF-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 Esaw T. Abraham whose telephone number is (571) 272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
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.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights