DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durai (US 2020/0159683 A1) in view of Dimitriu (US 2023/0025764 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Durai teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an I/O pin (Fig. 2, 225, [0037] output node 225) coupled to an output driver (Fig. 2, 216, [0037] output device 216) of which a termination resistance is adjustable ([0023] ODT impedance tuning, [0060]); and
a termination resistance control circuit (Fig. 2, control circuitry 211, calibration circuitry 215, [0045], [0046]) configured to transit the termination resistance from a first value to a second value (Fig. 3B, [0045] pull-up tuning, [0046] pull-down tuning) by:
applying a control signal to a transition of the termination resistance from the first value to the second value (Fig. 3B, [0045] signal lines 340 to receive control signals, [0046] signal lines 360 to receive control signals ).
However, Durai does not explicitly teach the apparatus, comprising the control circuit configured to transit the termination resistance by converting a control signal corresponding to the second value to a unary code; and apply the converted control signal to a transition of the termination resistance.
Dimitriu teaches an apparatus, comprising the control circuit configured to transit the termination resistance by converting a control signal corresponding to the second value to a unary code (Fig. 4, [0071] the logic circuit 415 to convert a binary code into a corresponding thermometer code); and apply the converted control signal to a transition of the termination resistance ([0071] a state of control signal output to a pre-driver 420 may be based on a logic value of a respective bit of a thermometer code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the teachings of Dimitriu to the teachings of Durai in order to support a non-linear scaling of a driver across different target voltages, which is beneficial to compensate for non-linearity of the individual driver elements (Dimitriu [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Durai further teaches the apparatus, wherein the second control signal comprises at least one of RTT_PARK, RTT_ WR, RTT_NOM_WR, or RTT_NOM_RD ([0039] Rtt_Park, Rtt_Nom, Rtt_Wr).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Durai further teaches the apparatus, wherein the termination resistance is configured to have predefined values during the transition ([0042] values previously determined via a calibration process).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Dimitriu further teaches the apparatus, wherein the second control signal is converted to the unary code from a binary code (Fig. 4, [0071] the logic circuit 415 to convert a binary code into a corresponding thermometer code).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Durai further teaches the apparatus, wherein the binary code of the second control signal is stored in a mode register ([0039] mode register settings).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Dimitriu further teaches the apparatus, wherein the termination resistance control circuit comprises a decoder configured to convert the second value to the unary code (Fig. 4, [0071] the logic circuit 415 to convert a binary code into a corresponding thermometer code).
Regarding claim 7, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Durai further teaches the apparatus, wherein the output driver comprise a plurality of driver units coupled in parallel, and wherein the termination resistance is adjusted by enabling or disabling one or more driver units of the plurality of driver units (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 8, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Durai in view of Dimitriu.
Durai further teaches the apparatus, wherein the termination resistance control circuit comprises one or more selection devices to select the second control signal from a plurality of control signals (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 9, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 8. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed. Specifically, the independent claim 16 is allowed over the prior arts. The dependent claims 17-20 are allowed due to their dependencies to the said independent claim 16.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art Dimitriu (US 2023/0025764 A1) teaches a termination resistance control circuit, comprising:
a decoder configured to receive a plurality of control signals and convert the plurality of control signals to respective unary codes; and
an output driver of which a termination resistance is adjustable, wherein the output driver is configured to provide termination resistance value based on the unary codes.
Prior arts do not disclose or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, a termination resistance control circuit, comprising:
a plurality of selection devices configured to select a particular control signal of the plurality of control signals based on a selection signal and output a unary code of the particular control signal, wherein the particular control signal corresponds to a particular termination resistance value.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached on 571-272-8048. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights