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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1: It appears that Applicant added, rather awkwardly, the words “corresponding redundancy encoded and compressed repair data” in the amended claim but did not underline the phrase. The insertion of these words renders the claim to not make sense in English since “write a contents of corresponding redundancy encoded and compressed repair data the cache to the non-volatile memory” does NOT make sense. Critical words are missing that are required to make the phrase be grammatically correct and understandable. It is possible that Applicant inadvertently added such a phrase since it was not underlined. Claims 2-12 depend on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments don’t seem to address the added words to claim 1 that were not underlined.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13: The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
repair system control logic configured to:
write a contents of the cache to the non-volatile memory;
load a contents of the non-volatile memory to the cache;
access the cache for a repair data write operation in response to a
repair data write request from a respective repair controller; and
access the cache for a repair data read operation in response to a
repair data read request from a respective repair controller
in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Claims 14-16 depend on claim 13.
Regarding claim 17: The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitation of
receiving, at a repair system from each tile, a respective repair address and
corresponding repair data;
selecting a cache address based on the respective repair address at which to
write the corresponding repair data to a cache; and
writing a contents of the cache to a non-volatile memory.
in combination with the other limitations thereof as is recited in the claim. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY W RADKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1622. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 EST.
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 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.
JAY W. RADKE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2827
/JAY W. RADKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights