Detailed Final Action
Introduction
1. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
2. This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 17/090,474 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘474 or the instant application), filed November 5, 2020, which is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,127,955 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘955 or the original patent), issued November 13, 2018 on U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 15/607,360 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘360 or the parent application), entitled “MEMORY ACTIVATION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND MEMORY CONTROLLER”, filed May 26, 2017.1 The original ‘955 patent is a continuation of PCT/CN2015/095886 filed 11/28/2015, now WO2016/082800, published June 2, 2016, which claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 2014 1 0707487, filed on November 28, 2014.
3. With regard to litigation involving ‘955, see Litigation Search Report of record. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of ‘955 itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any other previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
4. A response was filed March 31, 2026. The response amended claims 22, 25-27,30-31 and added claims 32-41. A new declaration was also filed.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 22-41 are pending.
Claims 22-41 are examined.
Claims 22-41 are objected to and/or rejected as set forth infra.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. Because the effective filing date of claims of the instant application is after March 16, 2013, see prior paragraph 2, the AIA First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply thereto. See also paragraph 1, supra.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(11). Therefore, unless Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term, see MPEP §211l.0l(IV), or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
When the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a claim:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7. Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22, lines 2-10 and 17-19 and similar language in claim 27 now recite generating according to both first and third memory requests a first activation instruction wherein the requests are for sub-rows located in the same row. Col. 15, lines 47-50 and 62-64 and col. 16, lines 12-22 are relied upon for support. However, as set forth in Fig. 1A-2 and col. 7, lines 25-50 (reproduced in paragraph 9 below), with regard to requests for sub-rows in the same row:
after a first memory access request is obtained, where the first memory access request is used to request to access a first sub-row in a memory, the first sub-row is not activated immediately. Instead, a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory is searched for a second memory access request, where the second memory access request is used to request to access a second sub-row in the memory2, and the first sub-row and the second sub-row are located in a same row in the memory. Then the first memory access request and the second memory access request are combined to generate a first activation instruction, where the first activation instruction is used to instruct to activate the first sub-row and the second sub-row in the memory. The first activation instruction is sent to the memory. In this way, the first sub-row and the second sub-row can be activated simultaneously, and it is unnecessary to precharge, after activation of the first sub-row, a row at which the first sub-row is located, and then activate the second sub-row. Therefore, efficiency of memory activation is improved.
(Emphasis added.)
This is not what is claimed on lines 2-10 and 17-19 of claim 22 and similar language of claim 27.
Continuing, claim 22, lines 11-16 and 20-21 and similar language in claim 27 now recite, in addition to obtaining the first and third memory requests, generating, after searching, a second activation instruction according to a second memory request wherein the second memory access request requests access to a second sub-row in the memory, and wherein the second sub-row includes a second storage unit whose second column number identifier is the same as a first column number identifier corresponding to a first storage unit included in the first sub-row. While the response does not specifically point out support, see, e.g., col. 15, lines 36-39 and 54-64 and col. 16, lines 1-22:
… Further, to improve resource utilization, the following solution is put forward.
In an embodiment of the present disclosure, to improve resource utilization of a storage unit, as shown in FIG. 9
…
… The request distribution module 90 is further configured to search a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory for a second memory access request, where the to-be-scheduled queue of the memory includes multiple memory access requests, the second memory access request is used to request to access a second sub-row in the memory, the first sub-row is located in a first subarray, and the second sub-row is located in a second subarray.
…
Both the first subarray and the second subarray include at least one row, any row in the at least one row includes at least one sub-row, any sub-row in the at least one sub-row includes at least one storage unit, and any storage unit is corresponding to one row number identifier and one column number identifier.
The second sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in the first sub-row.
In this embodiment of the present disclosure, further, the request distribution module 90 is further configured to:
obtain a third memory access request, where the third memory access request is used to request to access a third sub-row in the memory, the third sub-row and the first sub-row are located in a same row, and the second sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in the third sub-row.
The memory scheduler 91 is specifically configured to:
combine the first memory access request and the third memory access request to generate the first activation instruction.
(Emphasis added.)
However, neither such first and second sub-arrays nor the second sub-row also including a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in the third sub-row are claimed.
Finally, claim 22, lines 17 et seq and similar language of claim 27 now recite generating of the first and second activation instructions by the memory scheduler, sending and receiving of both the instructions by a command scheduler and sending both instructions to the memory. The response relied upon col. 15, line 62-67. However, see col. 15, lines 43-53 regarding the sequence with respect to the first activation instruction and then col. 15, lines 54-67 regarding the sequence regarding the second activation instruction. However, such activation instruction sequence order is not claimed.
Claim 25 now claims a sub-row selection vector generated by the memory scheduler after searching for a second memory request, identifies the first and third sub-row as being the sub-rows to activate. Col. 16, lines 14-15 and col. 8, lines 48-50 are relied upon for support. However, neither of these portions of the specification describe such sub-row generation. This also applies to similar claim language in claim 30.
Claim 26 now recites the first and third sub-rows being non-sequential. Col. 3, lines 40-43, col. 4, lines 11-23, and col. 8, lines 48-50 are relied on by the response for support. However, col. 3, lines 40-43 and col. 4, lines 11-23 describe “a fifth aspect” in which “a column number identifier corresponding to any storage unit included in the second sub-row is different from a column number identifier corresponding to any storage unit included in the first sub-row” (col. 4, lines 4-7) which is in conflict with the sub-row identifiers required in claim 22. See again col. 8, lines 48-50. This also applies to similar language of claims 31 and 27.
With respect to claims 37 and 32, esp. col. 16, lines 10-22. see the discussion of claims 22 and 27 above.
With regard to claims 38-41 and claims 33-36 regarding a fourth memory access request and a second activation instruction not only according to the second memory request but also according to a fourth memory access request located in the same row as the second sub-row request. The response relies upon col. 16, lines 24--35 support. However, the discussion of claims 22 and 27 with respect to requests for first and third sub-rows in the same row and the memory scheduler, esp. Figs. 1A-2, col. 7, lines 25-50 and footnote 2 again, also applies to the requests second and fourth sub-rows and the memory scheduler.
Reissue
Declaration
8. The reissue oath/declaration filed March 31, 2026 is accepted.
Original Patent
9. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
MPEP 1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP 1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are “for the invention disclosed in the original patent” as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent
specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied; and
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application. The presence of some disclosure (description and enablement) in the original patent should evidence that applicant intended to claim or that applicant considered the material now claimed to be his or her invention.
Claims 22-41 of this reissue application, as filed March 31, 2026, do not meet the “original patent” clause because they are not described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph is satisfied (See paragraph 7 above). Col. 7, lines 25-50 set forth:
Beneficial effects of the present disclosure are as follows:
In the prior art, multiple storage units cannot be activated simultaneously, but instead, each time after a storage unit is activated, the storage unit needs to be precharged, and then an activation operation can be performed on a next storage unit. Therefore, a current memory activation method has a disadvantage of relatively low efficiency. In the embodiments of the present disclosure, after a first memory access request is obtained, where the first memory access request is used to request to access a first sub-row in a memory, the first sub-row is not activated immediately. Instead, a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory is searched for a second memory access request3, where the second memory access request is used to request to access a second sub-row in the memory, and the first sub-row and the second sub-row are located in a same row in the memory. Then the first memory access request and the second memory access request are combined to generate a first activation instruction, where the first activation instruction is used to instruct to activate the first sub-row and the second sub-row in the memory. The first activation instruction is sent to the memory. In this way, the first sub-row and the second sub-row can be activated simultaneously, and it is unnecessary to precharge, after activation of the first sub-row, a row at which the first sub-row is located, and then activate the second sub-row. Therefore, efficiency of memory activation is improved.
(Emphasis added.)
See also col. 1, lines 35-56.4
Nowhere in the specification is it stated that a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory is searched by a memory scheduler, for a memory access request to generate an activation instruction or a sub-row selection vector, wherein the to-be-scheduled queue of the memory comprises multiple memory access requests, wherein the memory access request (i.e. the “second memory access request” as claimed in claims 22 and 27) requests access to a sub-row in the memory, and wherein the sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in another/different sub-row (i.e. “a first memory access request” as claimed in claims 22 and 27), but the to-be-scheduled queue of the memory is not also searched by the memory scheduler for requests in sub-rows which are in the same row as the “another” sub-row (i.e. not searching for “a third memory access request” in the same row as the “first memory access request” as claimed in claims 22 and 27 and not searching for “a fourth memory access request” in the same row as the “second memory access request” as claimed in claims 38-41 and 33-36). While a claim that does not specify searching a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory for memory access requests in the same row encompasses searching a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory for memory access requests in the same row, the specification does not support that the Patent Owner also had possession of not searching a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory for a memory access requests for sub-rows that are in the same row in order to generate/combine in a activation request or sub-row selection vector as also encompassed by the claim.
Also nowhere in the specification is it stated that requests for sub-rows which include a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as another column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in another sub-row (i.e. the first and second memory access requests as claimed in claims 22 and 27) are in any sub-array, i.e. different or same. While a claim that does not specify the sub-arrays including the sub-rows of requests whose column number identifiers are the same encompasses different sub-arrays including the sub-rows, the specification does not support that the Patent Owner had possession of requests for sub-rows in the same subarray whose column number identifiers are the same as also encompassed by the claim.
Nowhere in the specification is it stated that when first, second and third memory access requests are present as now claimed in claims 22 and 27, the second and third memory access requests include storage unit column number identifiers which are mutually exclusive. While a claim having first, second and third memory access requests as now presented in claims 22 and 27 encompasses second and third memory access requests including sub-row storage unit column number identifiers which are the same, the specification does not support that the Patent Owner had possession of second and third memory access requests for sub-rows including storage unit column number identifiers which are mutually exclusive as also encompassed by the claims.
Further, the Federal Circuit addressed the “original patent” requirement of 35 USC 251 in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In Antares, the reissue claims covered embodiments of injection devices (not restricted to jet-injection devices) which the Applicant admitted was a different invention from what was originally claimed. Id. at 1356. The Federal Circuit adopted the Supreme Court's explanation of the “same invention” requirement as “if the original patent specification fully describes the claimed inventions, but not if the broader claims ‘are [] merely suggested or indicated in the original specification’ ”. Id. at 1359. The Federal Circuit further stated that although wording in 35 USC 251 was changed from “same invention” to “original patent” no change in substance was intended. Id. at 1360.
Based on Antares a review of the specification is necessary to determine whether the original specification adequately discloses the invention of the reissue claims 22-41. Like in Antares, the ‘955 patent does not adequately support generating one activation instruction and sub-row selection vector according to requests for first and third sub-rows in the same row (claims 22 or 27) and according to second and fourth sub-rows in the same row (claims 38 and 33) other than for those requests found to be in the same row by searching a memory scheduler as well as searching a memory scheduler for a request for a second sub-row from a subarray including a storage unit having a same column number identifier as the request for a first sub-row request also from a subarray other than by searching for those sub-row requests also being from a different subarray and having a storage unit having a same column number identifier as the third sub-row request. The specification provides a consistent description of activation instructions and sub-row selection vectors generated from combining requests for the same row found from searching a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory by a memory scheduler (see Abstract, col. 1, line 22-56, col. 2, lines 1-16, 54-67, col. 3, lines 38-47, col. 4, line 8-23, col. 15, lines 29-50, col. 16, lines 10-22, col. 15, lines 54-64 , col. 16, lines 1-36, col. 17, line 43-col. 18, line 42, Figs. 9-10). The specification does not disclose or suggest the combining of requests to generate an activation request except after searching a memory scheduler for such requests. See Co1. 7, lines 31-50 of the ‘955 patent again which states, “In the embodiments of the present disclosure, after a first memory access request is obtained, where the first memory access request is used to request to access a first sub-row in a memory, the first sub-row is not activated immediately. Instead, a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory is searched for a second memory access request, where the second memory access request is used to request to access a second sub-row in the memory, and the first sub-row and the second sub-row are located in a same row in the memory. Then the first memory access request and the second memory access request are combined to generate a first activation instruction, where the first activation instruction is used to instruct to activate the first sub-row and the second sub-row in the memory. The first activation instruction is sent to the memory. In this way, the first sub-row and the second sub-row can be activated simultaneously, and it is unnecessary to precharge, after activation of the first sub-row, a row at which the first sub-row is located, and then activate the second sub-row. Therefore, efficiency of memory activation is improved”(emphasis added).
The specification also provides a consistent description of activation instructions and sub-row selection vectors generated from a request for a second sub-row after searching for sub-rows from different arrays than the sub-row of a first request as well as column identifiers which are the same as those of sub-rows of the first request and a third request which requests are for the same row. See again col. 15, line 36-col. 16, line 35.
Thus the patent not only continually states that activation instructions combine requests for sub-rows in a specific manner, it gives a reason for such combining and does not provide a suggestion that the results derive from combining requests other than specifically described. Therefore, claims 22-41 do not satisfy the “original patent” requirement.
Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 USC 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent.
10. Claims 22-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
See discussion in paragraph 7 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. The subject matter recited by claims 22-41 distinguishes over the art.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s March 31, 2026 remarks have been considered in their entirety. Specifically:
The remarks on page 8, e.g. status, have been noted.
The remarks on page 8-9 with respect to the support have been noted. See discussion in paragraphs 7 and 9 above with regard to the issues pending.
The remarks on page 10 with regard to the declaration and page 11 with regard to 35 USC 112(d) are moot in that the issue has not been maintained.
The remarks on pages 10-11 with regard to 251 and 112(a) have been considered. See again the discussion in paragraphs 7 and 9 above with regard to the pending issues.
Conclusion
Finality
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 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 10,127,955 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Inquiries:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karin M Reichle whose telephone number is (571)272-4936. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00-6:00 M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
All correspondence relating to this proceeding may be submitted via:
Electronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii) states that correspondence (except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be considered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating the date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.
/Karin Reichle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The term of the patent was extended or adjusted by 0 days.
2 As now set forth in the amended claims of 3/31/2026 these sub-rows which are in the same row are referred to as “a first memory access request” and “a third memory access request” in claims 22 and 27 and “a second memory access request” and “a fourth memory access request” as now set forth in the new claims 33 and 38.
3 As now set forth in the amended claims of 3/31/2026 these sub-rows which are in the same row are now referred to as “a first memory access request” and “a third memory access request” in claims 22 and 27 and “a second memory access request” and “a fourth memory access request” as now set forth in the new claims 33 and 38.
Note also col. 15, line 38-col. 16, line 47, including all the portions relied upon by the response for support first sets forth with regard to a first memory request:
In an embodiment … The request distribution module 90 is configured to obtain a first memory access request, where the first memory access request is used to request to access a first sub-row in a memory. The memory scheduler 91 is configured to obtain the first memory access request obtained by the request distribution module 90, and generate a first activation instruction according to the first memory access request. The command scheduler 92 is configured to send, to the memory, the first activation instruction obtained from the memory scheduler 91.
Then it sets forth with regard to a second memory request:
The request distribution module 90 is further configured to search a to-be-scheduled queue of the memory for a second memory access request, where the to-be-scheduled queue of the memory includes multiple memory access requests, the second memory access request is used to request to access a second sub-row in the memory, the first sub-row is located in a first subarray, and the second sub-row is located in a second subarray. The memory scheduler 91 is further configured to generate a second activation instruction according to the second memory access request. The command scheduler 92 is further configured to send, to the memory, the second activation instruction obtained from the memory scheduler 91.
Continuing, this section sets forth:
Both the first subarray and the second subarray include at least one row, any row in the at least one row includes at least one sub-row, any sub-row in the at least one sub-row includes at least one storage unit, and any storage unit is corresponding to one row number identifier and one column number identifier. The second sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in the first sub-row.
Then with regard to a third memory request:
In this embodiment of the present disclosure, further, the request distribution module 90 is further configured to: obtain a third memory access request, where the third memory access request is used to request to access a third sub-row in the memory, the third sub-row and the first sub-row are located in a same row, and the second sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as a column number identifier corresponding to a storage unit included in the third sub-row. The memory scheduler 91 is specifically configured to: combine the first memory access request and the third memory access request to generate the first activation instruction.
Finally, with regard to a fourth memory request
In this embodiment of the present disclosure, further, the request distribution module 90 is further configured to: obtain a fourth memory access request, where the fourth memory access request is used to request to access a fourth sub-row in the memory, the fourth sub-row and the second sub-row are located in a same row, and the fourth sub-row includes a storage unit whose column number identifier is the same as the column number identifier corresponding to the storage unit included in the first sub-row. The memory scheduler 91 is specifically configured to: combine the second memory access request and the fourth memory access request to generate the second activation instruction.
(Emphasis added.)
See also Fig. 1A, col. 8, lines 59-65 and col. 9, lines 12-22,
Prosecution Insights