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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 23, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification in general has conflicting statements that have found their way into the claims causing problems that Examiner has identified by reading up to [0062].
Various paragraphs including [0034[ state an address decoder selects a word line but then various other paragraphs including [0039] state that a word line selector, which is illustrated as being separate from and outside of the address decoder, selects a word line. See address decoder 1120 and word line selector 2100 in FIG. 5, for example. This is conflicting and needs to be cleared up throughout the specification.
One of these cases must be true and accurately explained and consistently stated: each one of an address decoder and a word line selector independently selects a word line or they together select a word line or just the address decoder alone selects the word line since it is directly connected to the word lines as illustrated.
Based on Examiner’s understanding, Examiner suggests amending the specification to accurately state and consistently state that a word line selector selects a word line by using an address decoder or via an address decoder because stating that the word line selector selects a word line is not accurate and is misleading at best since the word line decoder is not even directly connected to a word line and the address decoder as illustrated is needed to drive a selected word line such that it would be selected. It seems to Examiner that this problem has arisen since the little details of circuit 1120 given in FIG. 5 (merely pass transistors controlled by a common block select signal) is really just a block selector, and not really an address decoder as in a word line address decoder. Accordingly, the truth is a word line among a plurality of word lines, in FIG. 5 for example, is either being driven to a pre-charge voltage VWL (selected for pre--charging) by a word line selector/a word line bridge detector through a block selector 1120 or is being connected to a detection node Ndet (selected for detecting) by the word line selector for detection by the word line bridge detector (particularly by 2300 and 2400 of the word line bridge detector) through the block selector 1120.
Please review the entire specification and clear this conflict in a consistent manner
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1: The claim claims “an address decoder configured to select the first word line or the second word line” but then claims “the word line bridge detector being configured to change a selected word line from the first word line to the second word line”.
Such a claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
If a second word line is selected by the address decoder then the antecedent bases for “the first word line” in the context of being already selected would be lacking.
One does not know whether or not it was the address decoder that selected the “first word line” in the first place. Maybe another circuit has selector function independent from that of the address decoder, such as the word line selector introduced in claim 7, that selected the first word line in the first place.
Hence, the functional relationship between the address decoder and the word line selector is not definite, and one does not know what circuit or which circuit selected the first word line in the first place so that the selected word line would be changed from the first word line.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1; hence, comprise the seme indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11: The claim claims “a word line selector configured to select a first word line or a second word line” but then claims “the word line selector being configured to change a selected word line from the first word line to the second word line”.
Hence problems similar to or analogous to those explained above in regards to claim 1 exist.
Such a claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
If a second word line is selected by the word line selector then the antecedent bases for “the first word line” would be lacking.
One does not know whether or not it was the word line selector that selected the “first word line” in the first place. Maybe another circuit has selector function independent from that of the word line selector such that the first word line became selected.
Hence, one does not know what circuit or which circuit selected the first word line in the first place so that the selected word line would be changed from the first word line.
Claims 12-15 depend on claim 11; hence, comprise the seme indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 16: The claim claims “an address decoder configured to select the first word line or the second word line” but then claims “changing a selected word line from the first word line to the second word line”.
Such a claim is indefinite for the following reasons:
If a second word line is selected by the address decoder then the antecedent bases for “the first word line” in the context of being already selected would be lacking.
One does not know whether or not it was the address decoder that selected the “first word line” in the first place. Maybe another circuit has selector function independent from that of the address decoder such that the first word line became selected.
Hence, one does not know what circuit or which circuit selected the first word line in the first place so that the selected word line would be changed from the first word line.
Claims 17-20 depend on claim 16; hence, comprise the seme indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11: The claim claims “the word line selector being configured to detect whether a word line bridge exists between the first word line and the second word line by detecting a change in the voltage level of the detection node” but this is not supported by the specification and drawings.
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the word line selector, such as 2100 in each of FIG. 5, FIG. 6, FIG. 7, FIG. 9, and FIG. 10 merely is configured to select or not select a word line while it is comparator 2300 of thew word line bridge detector that generates a detection signal Le DET as is disclosed in [0059-0061]; hence, there is no support found for claiming “the word line selector being configured to detect whether a word line bridge exists between the first word line and the second word line by detecting a change in the voltage level of the detection node”.
Claims 12-15 depend on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY W RADKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1622. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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 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.
JAY W. RADKE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2827
/JAY W. RADKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights