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.
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.
Claims 1-20 use the phrases “maintain consistent guaranteed performance throughout a life span of the storage device”, and “maintain a guaranteed quality-of-service of the storage device.” However, the performance for semiconductor devices degrades with usage and life span of the device. It is impossible to guarantee the performance due to failures and errors in the device as a result of manufacturing, temperature, voltages, current, errors and other factors. In addition, the specification and the claims did not give a range or limits to what is guaranteed during the operation of the memory device. Someone reading this limitation would interpret this phrase to have a perfect semiconductor device without any failures or errors, which would be impossible. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
After further search and consideration it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach, the following limitation(s) in combination with the remaining claimed limitation:
a data path from a host to the memory device, wherein the data path includes sync points at components along the data path; and a controller to determine when a variance is introduced on the data path, measure a current time between adjacent sync points against a calibrated time associated with the adjacent sync points, calculate a corrected parameter value to detect a sync point parameter, apply a corrective measure to retune the sync point parameter, and use a retuned sync point parameter to test a calibrated timer on the data path and maintain a guaranteed quality-of-service of the storage device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Representative argues in page 7 “Applicant submits that a storage performance guarantee is a contractual Service Level Agreement from a vendor that guarantees that a storage device will maintain specific operational metrics. such as consistent latency, IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second), or throughput, under a given workload or at a given stage of life of the storage device. With this typical agreement in mind, one skilled in the art that is reading this limitation would not expect a perfect storage device without any failures or errors, as suggested in the Office Action. One would expect specific operational metrics as guaranteed by the vendor. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not indefinite and that the interpretation in the Office Action is contrary to current practice where storage performance guarantees are provided by vendors of storage device”
Arguments have been considered but respectfully are not persuasive. The argument that a storage device will maintain specific operation metrics creates more doubts that the limitation is indefinite, because the claims and the specification do not provide any ranges to these operation metrics. In addition, it is not clear what the metrics that are guaranteed to be maintained throughout a life span of the storage device. Finally, the current limitation can raise enablement issues. If the device is capable of maintain consistent guaranteed performance throughout a life span of the storage device or if it can maintain a guaranteed quality-of-service of the storage device. Memory device can’t maintain consistent guaranteed performance throughout a life span. Memory devices degrade with time and errors can occur which will affect the performance. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 KHAMDAN N ALROBAIE whose telephone number is (571)270-7099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday (8AM till 6PM).
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, Richard Elms can be reached at (571) 272-1869. 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.
/Khamdan N. Alrobaie/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights