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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-30 are pending in this action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Claim 1 recites a limitation such as “a data pattern conversion circuit … output the poison pattern”
Claim 15 recites a limitation such as “a data pattern conversion circuit … output the poison pattern”
Claim 24 recites a limitation such as “…convert the global line latch signal into a poison pattern and output the poison pattern …”
Figure 1 shows that a data pattern conversion circuit 300 only output a second global line WGIO. 300 does not output a poison pattern.
PNG
media_image1.png
104
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 shows that 281 to output a poison flag PSN or 282 to output read poison flag RPSN.
PNG
media_image2.png
236
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 shows that 291 to output either RPSN or WPSN and 292 to output poison flag control signal PSNC.
PNG
media_image3.png
230
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 shows that a data pattern conversion circuit 300 only output a second global line WGIO. 300 does not output a poison pattern.
PNG
media_image4.png
328
406
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 shows that a data pattern conversion circuit 300 only output a second global line WGIO. 300 does not output a poison pattern.
PNG
media_image5.png
112
276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
No figures show “a data pattern conversion circuit configured to …output the poison pattern”
Therefore, the “poison pattern” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-30 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.
Any claim not specifically mentioned, is rejected due to its dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim 1 recites a limitation such as “output of a write poison flag and a read poison flag as poison pattern control signal in accordance with a write command”
The recited limitation such as “in accordance with a write command” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a write command. As such, it is unclear which “write command” is referring to.
Claim 11 recites a limitation such as “poison processing circuit configured to output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned as a read poison flag in accordance with a read command”
The recited limitation such as “output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive any data. As such, it is unclear how it can detect whether the data is poisoned or not poisoned.
The recited limitation such as “in accordance with a read command” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a read command. As such, it is unclear which “read command” is referring to.
Claim 15 recites a limitation such as a poison processing circuit configured to output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned as a read poison flag according to a read command”
The recited limitation such as “output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive any data. As such, it is unclear how it can detect whether the data is poisoned or not poisoned.
The recited limitation such as “in accordance with a read command” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a read command. As such, it is unclear which “read command” is referring to.
Claim 15 recites a limitation such as “output one of a write poison flag and the read poison flag as a poison pattern control signal according to a write command”
The recited limitation such as “in accordance with a write command” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a write command. As such, it is unclear which “write command” is referring to.
Claim 24 recites a limitation such as “ when the first data is poisoned data, activate a read poison flag.”
The recited limitation such as “when the first data is poisoned data” renders this limitation indefinite because the previous limitation does not perform any testing on the first data in order to determining whether the first data is poisoned data or is not a poisoned data. As such, it is unclear how it know when the first data is a poisoned data.
Claim 26 recites a limitation such as “ when the first data is not poisoned data...”
The recited limitation such as “when the first data is not poisoned data” renders this limitation indefinite because the previous limitation does not perform any testing on the first data in order to determining whether the first data is poisoned data or is not a poisoned data. As such, it is unclear how it know when the first data is a poisoned data.
Claim 29 recites a limitation such as “a poison processing circuit configured to output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned as a read poison flag according to a read command”
The recited limitation such as “in accordance with a read command” renders this limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a read command. As such, it is unclear which “read command” is referring to.
Claim 29 recites a limitation such as “output one of a write poison flag and the read poison flag as a poison pattern control signal according to a write command”
The limitation indefinite because a poison processing circuit does not receive a write command. As such, it is unclear which “write command” is referring to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 are allowed if Applicant can overcome the rejection above and drawing objection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Lee et al. (US 2025/0,036,521) is the closet reference. Lee in figure 6 shows an error correction circuit 510 comprising ECC decoder 512 may include a syndrome calculator 513, a poison detector 515, an error corrector 517, and a poison flag generator 518, poison syndrome set 516.
Lee et al. (US 2023/0,119,555) discloses in [0054] … poison flag generator 130 generates the poison flag PF indicating whether the first main data MD1 corresponds to poisoned data based on the data DTA and transmits the poison flag PF to the semiconductor memory device 200.
The prior arts of record do not clearly disclose “… a poison processing circuit configured to output one of a write poison flag and a read poison flag as a poison pattern control signal in accordance with a write command; and a data pattern conversion circuit configured to convert the delayed data and the parity signal into a poison pattern according to the poison pattern control signal and output the poison pattern” as recited in claim 1
The prior arts of record do not clearly disclose “… a poison processing circuit configured to output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned as a read poison flag in accordance with a read command; and an error severity determination circuit configured to store error severity information at a level that facilitates a write operation regardless of the syndrome information when the read poison flag is activated” as recited in claim 11.
The prior arts of record do not clearly disclose “ …a poison processing circuit configured to output a result of detecting whether the data is poisoned as a read poison flag according to a read command and configured to output one of a write poison flag and the read poison flag as a poison pattern control signal according to a write command; a data pattern conversion circuit configured to convert the delayed data and the parity signal into a poison pattern according to the poison pattern control signal and output the poison pattern; an error severity determination circuit configured to store a result of operation on the syndrome information according to a predetermined operation logic as error severity information when the read poison flag is deactivated and configured to store the error severity information at a level that facilitates a write operation regardless of the syndrome information when the read poison flag is activated…” as recited in claim 15.
The prior arts of record do not clearly disclose “ …perform an error processing operation on first data transmitted on the first global line during an error check and scrub read operation to generate error correction data, and when the first data is poisoned data, activate a read poison flag and store error severity information corresponding to the first data at a level facilitating a write operation regardless of the error processing operation; and receive a global line latch signal latched from the first global line during an error check and scrub write operation, and when the read poison flag is activated, convert the global line latch signal into a poison pattern and output the poison pattern on the second global line” as recited in claim 24.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN DANG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/Thien Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights