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 .
This Office Action is responsive to original application filed on 01/06/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/06/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-13 are drawn to an apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claims 14-18 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claims 19 is drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., process). Claim 20 is drawn to a computer program product, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Regarding claim 1,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea as explained below. The claim recites:
a delay chain configured to adjust a phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal based on the second difference value – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process even if it’s claimed as being performed on a computer.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
a first counter configured to output a first count value corresponding to a first delay time of a data strobe signal on a first path – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a second counter configured to output a second count value corresponding to a second delay time of a data signal on a second path – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a first comparator configured to output a first difference value based on comparison of the first count value and the second count value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a first register configured to store a delay reference value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
a second comparator configured to output a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising a replica circuit corresponding to the first path, wherein the first counter is configured to output the first count value based on an output of the replica circuit – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising a replica circuit corresponding to the second path, wherein the second counter is configured to output the second count value based on an output of the replica circuit – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the data strobe signal controls sampling of the data signal to perform a write operation, and wherein the delay chain is configured to adjust the phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal to a preset value by changing the first delay time of the data strobe signal – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the delay reference value is determined as a difference between the first count value and the second count value when the phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal is adjusted to a preset value by a memory controller – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the delay chain is on the first path, and wherein the delay chain is configured to increase the first delay time of the data strobe signal when the second difference value is a positive number and to decrease the first delay time of the data strobe signal when the second difference value is a negative number – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 6, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein an amount of a change of the first delay time of the data strobe signal by the delay chain is determined based on a value of the second difference value multiplied by a preset period – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 7, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the preset period is determined based on the first count value and the second count value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the delay chain comprises a plurality of inverters, and wherein the memory apparatus is configured to determine a number of inverters from among the plurality of inverters that the data strobe signal bypasses based on the second difference value – This additional element as drafted, “wherein the memory apparatus is configured to determine a number of inverters from among the plurality of inverters that the data strobe signal bypasses based on the second difference value”, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering). The additional element as drafted, “wherein the delay chain comprises a plurality of inverters”, is merely reciting generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the first count value and the second count value change depending on a temperature or an operating voltage of the memory apparatus – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising a temperature sensor configured to obtain information on a temperature of the memory apparatus, wherein the memory apparatus is configured to change the first delay time of the data strobe signal by controlling the delay chain when the temperature of the memory apparatus is out of a preset range – This additional element as drafted, “wherein the memory apparatus is configured to change the first delay time of the data strobe signal by controlling the delay chain when the temperature of the memory apparatus is out of a preset range”, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering). The additional element as drafted, “further comprising a temperature sensor configured to obtain information on a temperature of the memory apparatus”, is merely reciting generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising a voltage sensor configured to obtain information on an operating voltage of the memory apparatus, wherein the memory apparatus is configured to change the first delay time of the data strobe signal by controlling the delay chain when the operating voltage of the memory apparatus is out of a preset range – This additional element as drafted, “wherein the memory apparatus is configured to change the first delay time of the data strobe signal by controlling the delay chain when the operating voltage of the memory apparatus is out of a preset range”, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering). The additional element as drafted, “further comprising a voltage sensor configured to obtain information on an operating voltage of the memory apparatus”, is merely reciting generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 1, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory apparatus is configured to transmit information on the first delay time of the data strobe signal on the delay chain to a memory controller – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea as explained below. The claim recites:
a delay chain configured to adjust a phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal based on the second difference value – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process even if it’s claimed as being performed on a computer.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory apparatus comprises a first counter configured to output a first count value corresponding to a first delay time of the data strobe signal on a first path – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a second counter configured to output a second count value corresponding to a second delay time of the data signal on a second path – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a first comparator configured to output a first difference value based on comparison of the first count value and the second count value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a first register configured to store a delay reference value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
a second comparator configured to output a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
a memory controller configured to provide a data signal and a data strobe signal – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) using generic computer components.
a memory apparatus configured to process the data signal and the data strobe signal provided by the memory controller – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 14, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
further comprising: a first replica circuit corresponding to the first path; and a second replica circuit corresponding to the second path, wherein the first counter is configured to output the first count value based on the first replica circuit, and wherein the second counter is configured to output the second count value based on the second replica circuit – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 14, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the data strobe signal controls sampling of the data signal to perform a write operation, and wherein the delay chain is configured to adjust the phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal to a preset value by changing the first delay time of the data strobe signal – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 14, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the delay chain is located on the first path, and wherein the delay chain is configured to increase the first delay time of the data strobe signal when the second difference value is a positive number and to decrease the first delay time of the data strobe signal when the second difference value is a negative number – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering) and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 14, so is directed to the same abstract idea(s). Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
wherein the memory apparatus includes one of NAND flash memory, NAND flash memory connected to a frequency boosting interface (FBI) chip, and dynamic random access memory (DRAM) – This additional element as drafted, is reciting generic computer components.
Accordingly, the claim does not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea as explained below. The claim recites:
adjusting a phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal based on the second difference value – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea(s) of a mental process even if it’s claimed as being performed on a computer.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
identifying a first count value corresponding to a first delay time of a data strobe signal on a first path and a second count value corresponding to a second delay time of a data signal on a second path – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
identifying a first difference value based on comparison of the first count value and the second count value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
identifying a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value – This additional element as drafted, is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering).
Accordingly, the claims do not include any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception into data gathering and well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The additional elements amount to no more than adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 includes all of the limitations of claim 19 but does not recite any additional claim limitation. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reason as claim 19.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the delay reference value" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowed provided that the outstanding 101 rejection and the indefinite rejection of claim 19 is overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
After careful considerations, examination and search of the claimed invention, the closest prior art of record does not teach or anticipate the claimed feature of claim 1 “a second comparator configured to output a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value; and a delay chain configured to adjust a phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal based on the second difference value” in combination with the overall claimed limitations when interpreted in light of the specification.
Three prior art references were considered by the Examiner. The references are: (1) Pilolli et al. US 2021/0263660 (“Pilolli”), (2) Kim et al. US 2020/0321039 (“Kim”), and (3) White et al. US 8,019,957 (“White”).
Pilolli teaches “[during] receiver write training, the memory device may measure the DQS-to-DQ timing and internally adjust DQ signal and/or DQS signal delays via trim changes as indicated by the calibration at 310.” Paragraph [0040] and FIG. 3 of Pilolli. Accordingly, Pilolli renders obvious the claim limitations “a first counter configured to output a first count value corresponding to a first delay time of a data strobe signal on a first path” and “a second counter configured to output a second count value corresponding to a second delay time of a data signal on a second path” and “a first comparator configured to output a first difference value based on comparison of the first count value and the second count value” given the current state of memory calibration technology. Further, Pilolli teaches “[the] trim changes may adjust the setup time (tDS) and hold time (tDH) margins to align the DQ signals. Thus, after receiver write training, the DQS signal may be aligned with each DQ0 to DQ7 signal as indicated at 312 and the data may be latched within the memory device in response to the DQS signal.” Paragraph [0040] of Pilolli and FIG. 3. That is, Pilolli appears to teach the claimed invention at a general level, but does not seem to teach the nitty gritty details of claim 1. For example, Pilolli does not teach “a second comparator configured to output a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value; and a delay chain configured to adjust a phase difference between the data signal and the data strobe signal based on the second difference value” required by claim 1. Accordingly, Pilolli does not teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1.
Kim to some extent appears to remedy the deficiency of Pilolli. For example, Kim teaches “the first register 631 may store delay information DLY_INF indicating a preset delay as target delay information TARGET.” Paragraph [0134] of Kim. That is, Kim teaches “a first register configured to store a delay reference value” required by claim 1. However, the DELTA value and the SIGN information resulting from a difference between two delay values of Kim (see paragraph [0135] of Kim) does not meet the requirement of claim 1. That is, the DELTA value and the SIGN information of Kim does not teach “a second comparator configured to output a second difference value based on comparison of the first difference value and the delay reference value” required by claim 1. Therefore, Kim in any combination with Pilolli does not teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1.
White is similar in scope to Pilolli. That is, White is directed to the calibration of a DQS signal (see title of White). Similar to Pilolli, White delays a DQS signal to align with data signals. However, White is silent about the above-noted claim limitations.
Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the cited prior art.
Independent claims 14 and 19-20 require similar subject matter as claim 1 and these claims are also allowable for the aforementioned reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUBAIR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1655. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM 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, HOSAIN T. ALAM can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/ZUBAIR AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2132
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132