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 .
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 3 and 16 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 3 recites the limitation "the other program command" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant is advised to amend this limitation with “the another program command.”
Claim 3 recites, “the program command” in line 8. It is unclear if the applicant meant to reference “the program command” recited in claim 1 or “the another program command” in claim 3—as best understood by the examiner it should be “the another program command.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the other program command" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant is advised to amend this limitation with “the another program command.”
Claim 16 recites, “the program command” in line 8. It is unclear if the applicant meant to reference “the program command” recited in claim 1 or “the another program command” in claim 3—as best understood by the examiner it should be “the another program command.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation(s) of "select a programming scheme, from multiple candidate programming schemes, to be used to write the host data to the memory based on the at least one of the size of the host data, the memory architecture, or the memory configuration," in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. Claims 2 and 4-7 depend on claim 1; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Regarding independent claim 8, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation(s) of "selecting a programming scheme, from multiple candidate programming schemes, to be used to write the host data to a memory based on the size of the host data and based on determining that the program command is associated with the SLC program command," in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. Claims 9-13 depend on claim 8; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Regarding independent claim 14, the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation(s) of "select a programming scheme, from multiple candidate programming schemes, to be used to write the host data to the memory die based on the at least one of the size of the host data, the memory die architecture, or the memory die configuration," in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. Claims 15 and 17-20 depend on claim 14; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Claims 3 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BRYCE HEISTERKAMP whose telephone number is (703)756-1095. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700.
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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at (571) 272-1852. 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.
/JUSTIN BRYCE HEISTERKAMP/Examiner, Art Unit 2827
/AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights