Detailed Non-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 October 24, 2025. The response cancelled claims 1-21 and added claims 23-31.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 22-31 are pending.
Claims 22-31 are examined.
Claims 22-31 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.
Reissue
Declaration
7. The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR
1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The oath or declaration must properly identify at least one error under 35 U.S.C. 251
being relied upon as a basis for the reissue (37 CFR 1.175(a)). Any error in the claims must be
identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the
error. The difference between the new claims and the original claims must be pointed out.
See MPEP § 1414. If the reissue is a broadening reissue, a claim that the application seeks
to broaden must be identified. Note that the error that supports the reissue is not limited to an
error in the claims but may exist elsewhere in the patent (e.g., in the specification, drawings, etc.)
as long as the error is an error that causes the patent to be wholly or partly operative or invalid.
All the declarations filed in the application identify an error with regard to claim 1 only. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
8. Claims 22-31 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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 22-31 of this reissue application, as filed October 24, 2025, 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 (rejection provided below). 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 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.)
See also col. 1, lines 35-56.2
Nowhere in the specification is it stated that requests for sub-rows which are not in the same row generate an activation instruction nor a sub-row selection vector. While a claim that does not specify what row(s) are included by sub-rows of requests used to generate an activation instruction and a sub-row selection vector encompasses requests for sub-rows in the same row, the specification does not support that the Patent Owner had possession of an activation instruction and sub-row selection vector generated according to requests for sub-rows that are not in the same row.
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 22-31. 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 second subrows other than those in the same row but including respective storage units having same column number identifiers. The specification provides a consistent description of activation instructions and sub-row selection vectors generated from combining requests for the same row (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, lines1-9 and 23-40, 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 and sub-row selection vectors other than combining requests for the same row. 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).
Thus the patent not only continually states that activation instructions combine requests for subrows for the same row, it gives a reason for such combining and activation request and does not provide a suggestion that the results derived from combining requests other than those of the same row can also be derived using requests which are not from the same row, e.g. having the same column number identifier but not the same row. Therefore, claims 22-31 which eliminate the same row requirement does not satisfy the “original patent” requirement.
Claims 22-31 are rejected under 35 USC 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent.
10. Claims 22-31 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 below.
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.
11. Claims 22-31 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.
Claims 22 and 27 recite generating according to both first and second memory requests a first activation instruction wherein the requests are for subrows with a storage unit including a column number identifiers which are the same. The response relies upon original claim 1, col. 16, lines 7-9 and col. 18, lines 17-21. Patent claim 1 and col. 18, lines 17-21 are drawn to first and second memory requests for first and second (third) subrows located in the same row which is not claimed. Col. 16, lines 7-9 is drawn to first and second requests which are for subrows having a storage unit including a column number identifier which is the same. However, the requests generate respective first and second activation instructions which is not claimed. Claims 23-26 and 28-31 depend from claims 22 and 27, respectively. With further regard to claims 23-25 and 28-30, these claims recite generating a sub-row selection vector and such identifying the sub-row of the first and second subrows of the first and second requests. The response relies upon col. 9, lines 18-22. See also col. 8, lines 59-65 and Fig. 1A. These portions describe generating sub-row selection vectors identifying sub-rows to be active which sub-rows are located in the same row which is not what is claimed.
12. Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 26 and 31 recite that the first and second subrows are non-sequential. However, since claims 22 and 27 recite that each subrow includes a storage unit which has the same column number identifier, such rows are already claimed as being non-sequential. Thus claims 26 and 31 are redundant.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. The subject matter recited by claims 22-31 distinguishes over the art.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicant’s October 24, 2025 remarks have been considered in their entirety. Specifically:
The remarks on page 5, e.g. status, have been noted.
The remarks on page 5 with respect to the support have been noted.
The remarks on page 6 with regard to drawings, amendment and prior art rejections are noted. Such remarks are deemed moot because the issues have not been maintained.
Conclusion
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 Note also col. 15, line 38-col. 16, line 47, including col. 16, lines 7-9 relied upon by the response as discussed below:
“… 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. 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 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. 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. In this embodiment of the present disclosure, optionally, 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 third sub-row….”, i.e. activation requests are generated by requests for the same row/different column number.’ (emphasis added.) and Fig. 1A, col. 8, lines 59-65 and col. 9, lines 12-22,