DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants' response filed 4/24/2026 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC 112 are maintained and reformulated in view of amendments filed.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one media interface device is further configured to receive a serialized command from the host interface device, and wherein the at least one media interface device is further configured to perform at least one data processing operation that is otherwise performed by the host interface device, based on the serialized command” which does not particularly point out how the data processing operation is performed and what is the criteria for the data processing operation to be performed by the media interface device otherwise by the host interface device? Does the data processing operation by the media interface device happen before the host interface device? Further, what type of the data processing operation is performed? Is it an address mapping, wear-leveling, or garbage collection, etc. Furthermore, the term “based on” does not narrow the claim because it does not indicate any step performed or does not provide direct relationship between any two steps. There isn't a complete thought process or flow throughout the claim. Essential elements appear to be missing from the claims that are necessary to make the claim complete and clear as a whole. Corrections are requested.
Independent claim 10 includes similar limitations of independent claim 1 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons. Independent claim 16 includes partially similar limitations of independent claim 1 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Dependent claims depend from the base claims and inherently include limitations therein and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as well.
It is the Examiner's conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not clear. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESAW T ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3812. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner'ssupervisor, Albert DeCady can be reached on (571) 272-3819. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (703) 872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ESAW T ABRAHAM/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights