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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 sets forth “the controller evicts data entry with the lowest cache score.” For purposes of compact prosecution, this is being interpreted as “the controller evicts the data entry with the lowest cache score”. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 14 sets forth “evicting data entry with the lowest cache score from the cache”. For purposes of compact prosecution, this is being interpreted as “evicting the data entry with the lowest cache score from the cache”. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claim 1 sets forth “determine whether the target wordline is in an attacker wordline list including neighbor wordlines adjacent to an intrinsically weak wordline susceptible to read disturbances”.
The term “intrinsically weak wordline” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intrinsically weak” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The instant specification sets forth in [0084]: “These wordlines are referred to as intrinsically weak wordlines which usually downgrade easier and faster and which are susceptible to read disturbances.” This definition for “intrinsically weak wordlines” indicates that intrinsically weak wordlines usually downgrade “easier and faster”, which are also relative terms that do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Although the specification sets forth tables including “intrinsically weak wordlines”, including in at least [0089], one of ordinary skill in the art would require further information as to what qualifies as an “intrinsically weak wordline”. For example, although the specification suggests that an “intrinsically weak wordline” is susceptible to read disturbances, this does not provide support for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention because “susceptible to read disturbances” is relative to another undefined wordline which might be “less susceptible to read disturbances”. There is no support in the specification as to what qualifies as “more or less susceptible” to read disturbances.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner requests clarification as to the intended meaning of this term. For example, in paragraph [0084], which sets forth “intrinsically weak wordlines which usually downgrade easier and faster and which are susceptible to read disturbances”, clarification as to what the “intrinsically weak wordlines” downgrade “easier and faster” than could help provide requisite support.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 11 sets forth “determining whether the target wordline is in an attacker wordline list including neighbor wordlines adjacent to an intrinsically weak wordline susceptible to read disturbances”.
The term “intrinsically weak wordline” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intrinsically weak” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The instant specification sets forth in [0084]: “These wordlines are referred to as intrinsically weak wordlines which usually downgrade easier and faster and which are susceptible to read disturbances.” This definition for “intrinsically weak wordlines” indicates that intrinsically weak wordlines usually downgrade “easier and faster”, which are also relative terms that do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree.
Although the specification sets forth tables including “intrinsically weak wordlines”, including in at least [0089], one of ordinary skill in the art would require further information as to what qualifies as an “intrinsically weak wordline”. For example, although the specification suggests that an “intrinsically weak wordline” is susceptible to read disturbances, this does not provide support for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention because “susceptible to read disturbances” is relative to another undefined wordline which might be “less susceptible to read disturbances”. There is no support in the specification as to what qualifies as “more or less susceptible” to read disturbances.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner requests clarification as to the intended meaning of this term. For example, in paragraph [0084], which sets forth “intrinsically weak wordlines which usually downgrade easier and faster and which are susceptible to read disturbances”, clarification as to what the “intrinsically weak wordlines” downgrade “easier and faster” than could help provide requisite support.
Claims 12-20 are rejected as dependent upon claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following related prior art is made of record:
US 20220270679 (Lu, et al.)
US 20240134802 (Laurent, et al.)
The prior art of record does not appear to teach the subject matter of claims 1-20. However, resolution of indefiniteness issues is required and further search and consideration must be completed before indication of allowability can be made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KING whose telephone number is (703)756-1232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/DANIEL JOHN KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2827
/AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights