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 8, 12, 17, and 21 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 8 recites the limitation "the new temperature code" in lines 11-12 of page 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend claim 8 to be dependent on claim 2.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the internal register" in lines 1-2 of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a set time after completing the program operation" in lines 16-17 of page. Claim 16 also recites “a set time” in relation to “the program elapsed time” in line 13 of page 7. The instance of “a set time after completing the program operation” in claim 17 is not clearly distinct nor clearly further limiting from the instance of “a set time” in claim 16.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the register" in lines 17-18 of page 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 includes an instance of “a register” but is not included in the dependency of claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are allowable.
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 "when a read command is externally received after completing the program operation and a program elapsed time is within a set time, the control logic is configured to set at least one of a level of operating voltages and a bit line precharge level which are to be used in a read operation corresponding to the read command, based on the temperature code generated after receiving the program command" in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. The closest prior art, Goss et al. (US 20120102259 A1), discloses, “The read channel configuration, which may include reference voltages used for the read operation, is determined using the write time information and the write temperature information.” (Abstract). However, the methods found therein do not include setting read operating voltages based on a temperature code that is generated after receiving a programming/writing command when a programming/writing operation’s elapsed time is within a set time. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Regarding independent claim 9, 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 "setting second operating voltages used in a second operation based on the first temperature code, when a second command corresponding to the second operation is received within a set time after completing the first operation; and performing the second operation using the set second operating voltages" in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. The closest prior art, Goss et al. (US 20120102259 A1), discloses, “The read channel configuration, which may include reference voltages used for the read operation, is determined using the write time information and the write temperature information.” (Abstract). However, the methods found therein do not include setting a second (read) operation’s operating voltages based on a temperature code that is generated after receiving a first command for a first (program/write) operation when a second command for the second operation is received within a set time after completing the first operation. Claims 10-11, and 13-15 depend on claim 9; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Regarding independent claim 16, 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 "setting second operating voltages to be used in the read operation, using the first temperature code; and performing the read operation using the set second operating voltages when the program elapsed time is within a set time," in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim. Claims 18- depend on claim 16; and therefore, are allowable for at least these reasons.
Regarding independent claim 24, 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 "wherein, when the read command corresponding to the read operation is received within the set time after completing the program operation, the control logic is configured to set at least one of the level of operating voltages and the bit line precharge level which are to be used in the read operation, based on the first temperature code," in combination with the other limitations recited in the claim.
Claims, 8, 12, 17, and 21 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