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 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22 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 now recites the limitations: “comparing addresses of memory subsections of the addressable memory section that is a candidate for access with a set of faulty memory subsection addresses, the set including at least one address of a faulty memory subsection having coupled therewith a mask indicative of a related fault typology, the mask being configured to exclude one or more bits of the compared addresses from consideration in determining a match;”. These limitations are now reciting that a comparison is made between access addresses and faulty memory addresses, then after the comparison is done, the mask is configured to exclude one or more bits of the compared (past tense) addresses from consideration in determining a match. It is unclear how this process works, how is the mask used to exclude one or more bits from addresses after the comparison and how does this result in a match? Further, what is being matched? Additionally, it is unclear how the mask is both coupled therewith to one of the faulty memory addresses and further is also used to exclude one or more bits of the compared addresses? In other words, the mask is part of one of the compared addresses but also masking the addresses. Also, the claims don’t describe actually using the mask to exclude one or more bits, but rather that the mask is configured to do so and therefore no match is required to be determined.
Further claim 1 now recites: “substituting, with a spare memory subsection in the spare memory section, the memory subsections of the addressable memory section that is the candidate for access, for which the comparing the addresses indicates a match by way of identity of the compared addresses having applied thereto address masking with the mask indicative of the related fault typology.”. This limitation is stating that comparing the addresses indicates a match, however this is not what the newly amended limitations in item 4 above state. The match referred to in the previous limitation is the result of a comparison being made between access addresses and faulty memory addresses, then after the comparison is done, the mask is configured to exclude one or more bits of the compared (past tense) addresses from consideration in determining a match (which is not required to be determined). Therefore it is unclear under what conditions the substituting occurs. It is unclear whether this “a match” is referring back to the “a match” of the previous limitation discussed in item 4 above or whether this is a new separate match. It is further unclear exactly what the term “identity” means in the context of this claim. What is an identity of the compared addresses and how is the match “by way” of this identity?
Claims 11 and 19 have the same issues as claim 1 above.
Claims 9, 17, 21 and 22 use the term “a/the match”. It is unclear which match from the independent claims are being referred to or if there is a third match. The use of the term “the match” in claims 9 and 17 introduce antecedent basis issues. These claims also have the same issue with the term “identity” that claims 1, 11 and 19 have.
The remaining dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon a reject base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments pertain to the newly amended claim language, which has introduced new 112 issues as described above.
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 MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights