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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Philipp et al. (PGPUB 20080084738), hereinafter as P fails to disclose “determine whether to refresh the second memory based on the data representative of the temperature history stored in the first memory”:
“first memory” is matched to the P’s temperature budget sensor (TBS), TBS is inherently a memory since in [0033] of P, TBS is written/programmed to an initial state, additional evidence can also be found in [0049] indications of the resistance states of the TBS;
TBS monitors total temperature budget (which is matched to temperature history)
as in [0033] of P, also in [0007] temperature history is part of temperature budget,
therefore TBS value is matched to “data representative of temperature history”;
(in other word: TBS is a memory with changing values/states, which act as indication of temp budget/temp history);
“second memory” is matched to multi-bit memory cells as that in Fig 1 of P,
Fig. 8 of P teaches to refresh “second memory” when “first memory” data triggering the limits at step 604 of the Fig 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6, 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Philipp et al. (PGPUB 20080084738), hereinafter as Philipp.
Regarding claim 1, Philipp teaches a device, comprising: a first memory (Fig 1, 112a…); and a processor (Fig 1, 108) coupled to the first memory and configured to:
store, in the first memory, data representative of a temperature history ([0033] each … 112a-d… is written or programmed (i.e. 112a-d as a memory with data written) to initial state and monitors the total temperature budget of memory device) of a second memory (Fig 1, 106a…c) over a period of time ([0033] any other suitable interval); and
determine whether to refresh the second memory based on the data representative of the temperature history stored in the first memory (Fig 8, 602-606, and argument used in Responsive to Arguments above applies).
Regarding claim 2, Philipp teaches the second memory (Fig 1, 106a…c).
Regarding claim 10, Philipp teaches a method, comprising: storing, in a first memory, data representative of a temperature history of a second memory over a period of time (argument used in rejection of claim 1 applies); and
determining, by a processor coupled to the first memory, whether to refresh the second memory based on the data representative of the temperature history stored in the first memory (Fig 8).
Regarding claim 18, Philipp teaches an apparatus, comprising: a non-volatile memory (Fig 1); and a circuit configured to: obtain data representative of a temperature history of the non-volatile memory over a period of time; and determine whether to refresh the non-volatile memory based on the data representative of the temperature history (argument used in rejection of claim 1 applies).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Philipp, in view of Prakash et al. (PGPUB 20210174886), hereinafter as Prakash.
Regarding claim 3, Philipp teaches a device as in rejection of claim 2,
But not expressly obtain a plurality of temperature values of the second memory over the period of time to generate the temperature history.
Prakash teaches obtain a plurality of temperature values of the second memory over the period of time to generate the temperature history ([0225] and Fig 15B).
Since Philipp and Prakash are both from the same field of semiconductor memory device, the purpose disclosed by Prakash would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Philipp.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recording temperature as in Prakash into the device of Philipp for the purpose of managing a refresh operation of the memory device.
Regarding claim 4, Prakash teaches calculate a value of an operating function representative of an operating condition of the second memory (Trep at [0232]) ; and
sum subsequent calculated values of the operating function to obtain an accumulated value (Fig 15C, and [0234] summed with Trep1xtp3); and
compare the accumulated value with a threshold value to determine whether to refresh the second memory (Fig 15C, and [0234] TT_th2).
The reason for combining the references used in rejection of claim 3 applies.
Regarding claim 7, Prakash teaches the operating function is representative of the temperature dependence of a retention time, the accumulated value is representative of an elapsed fraction of a retention time limit (Fig 15C and [0232-234]).
The reason for combining the references used in rejection of claim 3 applies.
Regarding claim 8, Prakash teaches a look-up table (Fig 12A/B) having a plurality of values of the operating function in association respectively with a plurality of temperature values.
The reason for combining the references used in rejection of claim 3 applies.
Regarding claim 9, Prakash teaches a counter, wherein the processor is further configured to increment the counter in response to an operation to sum a subsequent calculated value of the operating function and to reset the counter in response to an operation to refresh the second memory (Fig 14A, and [0219] when elapsed time reaches allowed discharge time, next refresh operation begins, and it is shown the cycles carry on).
The reason for combining the references used in rejection of claim 3 applies.
Regarding claim 11, argument used in rejection of claim 3 applies.
Regarding claim 12, argument used in rejection of claim 4 applies.
Regarding claim 15, argument used in rejection of claim 7 applies.
Regarding claim 16, argument used in rejection of claim 8 applies.
Regarding claim 17, argument used in rejection of claim 9 applies.
Regarding claim 19, argument used in rejections of claim 4, 7, and 8 apply.
Regarding claim 20, argument used in rejection of claim 9 applies.
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 MIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5798. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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.
/MIN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights