DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 1/16/26 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Prior rejections are maintained and are reformulated in view of amendments.
Application is pending.
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 1-20 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.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
772
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim states, “…determine a first count of memory cells having a threshold voltage less than the default voltage; in response to the first count being less than a first threshold, determine the that an optimal read voltage for reading the memory cells has a positive offset relative to the default read voltage, wherein the first threshold is a count of memory cells each having a default threshold voltage less than a fist voltage in voltage distributions of the data states…”
This limitation is not clear.
If the threshold voltage is less than the default read voltage then should the optimal read voltage have a negative offset relative to the default read voltage?
Otherwise the optimal voltage would not only be greater than the threshold voltage but also greater than the first default voltage.
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Then the claim states, “…in response to the first count being greater than a second threshold, determine that the optimal read voltage has a negative offset relative to the default read voltage, wherein the second threshold is a count of the memory cells having a threshold voltage less the second voltage in the voltage distributions of the data states, and wherein the first threshold is less than the second threshold…”
This limitation appears to contradict itself.
If the first count is less than the first threshold and greater than the second threshold, then how can the first threshold be less then the second threshold?
Is the threshold voltage mentioned in this limitation referring to the same threshold voltage in the prior limitation? There is lack of proper antecedent basis.
If the first count is greater than the second threshold, shouldn’t the optimal read voltage have a positive offset?
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Independent claims 12 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons and require corrections as well. Respective dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not clear. Applicant is encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. Pertinent prior arts have been cited for Applicant’s review.
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 MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights