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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-22 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 1 sets forth “a first control line used for data writing; a second data line and a second control line used for data reading” and also sets forth “wherein in data writing or data reading”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data writing” and “data reading” is referring to the same occurrence of “data writing” and/or “data reading”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 1 sets forth “retaining data”, “latch data”, and “detect data”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data” is referring to the same data and/or group of data, and therefore the intended meaning of the claim is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 1 sets forth “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor,” This language is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what is intended to be claimed by “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to make and/or use the invention based on this language. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 1 sets forth “the other end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other end” in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 1 sets forth multiple instances of “from outside”. This language is indefinite. Further clarification is required to define the concept of “outside”, as well as if all occurrences of “from outside” in the claim are referring to the same “outside”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 2 sets forth “a plurality of the first control lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, or claim 2 does not set forth “the first control lines”, and only indicates one first control line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the first control lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 2 sets forth “a plurality of the second control lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, or claim 2 does not set forth “the second control lines”, and only indicates one second control line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the second control lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 2 sets forth “a plurality of the first data lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, or claim 2 does not set forth “the first data lines”, and only indicates one first data line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the first data lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 does set forth the language “a detection circuit connected to the first and second data lines”, but this does not provide antecedent basis for multiple “first data lines”.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 2 sets forth “a plurality of the second data lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, or claim 2 does not set forth “the second data lines”, and only indicates one second data line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the second data lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 does set forth the language “a detection circuit connected to the first and second data lines”, but this does not provide antecedent basis for multiple “second data lines”.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 7 sets forth “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor,” This language is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what is intended to be claimed by “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to make and/or use the invention based on this language. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 7 sets forth “retaining data”, “latch data”, and “detect data”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data” is referring to the same data and/or group of data, and therefore the intended meaning of the claim is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 7 sets forth “the other end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other end” in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 7 sets forth “a first control line used for data writing; a second data line and a second control line used for data reading” and also sets forth “wherein in data writing or data reading”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data writing” and “data reading” is referring to the same occurrence of “data writing” and/or “data reading”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 7 sets forth multiple instances of “from outside”. This language is indefinite. Further clarification is required to define the concept of “outside”, as well as if all occurrences of “from outside” in the claim are referring to the same “outside”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 8-12 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
Claim 13 sets forth “a first control line used for data writing; a second data line and a second control line used for data reading” and also sets forth “wherein in data writing or data reading”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data writing” and “data reading” is referring to the same occurrence of “data writing” and/or “data reading”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as dependent upon claim 13.
Claim 13 sets forth “retaining data”, “latch data”, and “detect data”. This language is indefinite. It is unclear whether each instance of “data” is referring to the same data and/or group of data, and therefore the intended meaning of the claim is not clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as dependent upon claim 13.
Claim 13 sets forth “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor,” This language is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear what is intended to be claimed by “and a third transistor that includes a gate connected to the other end of the first transistor and retaining data from the first data line and one end connected to the other end of the second transistor”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to make and/or use the invention based on this language. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as dependent upon claim 13.
Claim 13 sets forth “the other end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other end” in the claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as dependent upon claim 13.
Claim 13 sets forth multiple instances of “from outside”. This language is indefinite. Further clarification is required to define the concept of “outside”, as well as if all occurrences of “from outside” in the claim are referring to the same “outside”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 14-22 are rejected as dependent upon claim 13.
Claim 14 sets forth “a plurality of the first control lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 13, upon which claim 14 depends, or claim 14 does not set forth “the first control lines”, and only indicates one first control line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the first control lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected as dependent upon claim 14.
Claim 14 sets forth “a plurality of the second control lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 13, upon which claim 14 depends, or claim 14 does not set forth “the second control lines”, and only indicates one second control line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the second control lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected as dependent upon claim 14.
Claim 14 sets forth “a plurality of the first data lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 13, upon which claim 14 depends, or claim 14 does not set forth “the first data lines”, and only indicates one first data line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the first data lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected as dependent upon claim 14.
Claim 14 sets forth “a plurality of the second data lines”. This language is indefinite. Claim 13, upon which claim 14 depends, or claim 14 does not set forth “the second data lines”, and only indicates one second data line. This language renders the claim indefinite, and there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “a plurality of the second data lines”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are rejected as dependent upon claim 14.
Examiner has made effort to note as many of the current indefiniteness issues as possible. However, the structure of the claims, including the present indefiniteness issues, makes it difficult to discern if each issue has been pointed out. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner appreciates Applicant’s cooperation in resolving any indefiniteness issues which Applicant may become aware of in the claims.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to make and/or use the invention due to the pending indefiniteness issues in the claims. As a result, it is also improper to apply prior art due to unclear language in the claims. However, the following prior art is made of record as seemingly relevant to the claim language:
US 20100177573 (Matsuoka, et al.)
US 20150063003 (Tsukada)
US 20220036832 (Lim)
Further search and consideration is required upon resolution of indefiniteness issues before any indication of allowable subject matter can be made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KING whose telephone number is (703)756-1232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/DANIEL JOHN KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2827
/AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights