DETAILED ACTION
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 communication(s) filed on 12/04/2023. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 07/31/2025, 12/05/2024, and 12/04/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 1-3, 6-7, and 12-20 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 1-3, 6-7, and 12-20 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., process). Claims 12-16 are drawn to a device which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claims 17-20 are drawn to a system 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:
receiving, by the first circuit, first column data and second column data from the row data – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because it recites a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions). A human could mentally identify column data from a page of data.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving, by a first circuit, row data of a page – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
sending, by the first circuit, the first column data and the second column data to a first output port of the first circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. 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:
wherein the sending comprises performing time division multiplexing (TDM) on the first column data and the second column data – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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:
wherein the first circuit comprises a column filter configured to: receive the first column data and the second column data from the row data; and output the first column data and the second column data to a first data path based on TDM – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 first output port of the first circuit is connected to a first input port of a scan circuit; and a second output port of the first circuit is connected to a second input port of the scan circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 the first circuit groups the first column data with third column data output to the second output port – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 recites an abstract idea as explained below. The claim recites:
receive first column data and second column data from the row data – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because it recites a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions). A human could mentally identify column data from a page of data.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
receive row data of a page – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
send the first column data and the second column data to a first output port of the first circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. 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 12, 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 sending comprises time division multiplexing (TDM) the first column data and the second column data – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 depends from claim 12, 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 output port of the first circuit is connected to a first input port of a scan circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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:
wherein the scan circuit: performs a scan operation associated with the first input port of the scan circuit; and outputs result data based on the scan operation – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 scan circuit performs a scan operation with respect to one or more columns of the row data – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 recites an abstract idea as explained below. The claim recites:
extracting first column data and second column data from the row data – This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the abstract idea(s) of a mental process because it recites a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions). A human could mentally extract column data from a page of data.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim recites the additional elements of:
receiving row data of a page – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
sending the first column data and the second column data to a first output port of a first circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. 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 17, 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 sending comprises time division multiplexing (TDM) the first column data and the second column data – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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 depends from claim 17, 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 output port of the first circuit is connected to a first input port of a scan circuit – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
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,
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim depends from claim 19, 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 scan circuit: performs a scan operation associated with the first input port of the scan circuit; and outputs result data based on the scan operation – This limitation is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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. The additional elements amount to no more than applying an exception using generic computer components.
Accordingly, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant Provided Prior Art (APPA) Ware et al. US 2019/0339908 (“Ware”).
As per independent claim 1, Ware teaches A method for data processing (“A method of operation in a memory device,” see independent claim 20), the method comprising:
receiving, by a first circuit (“page buffer 147” para 0042 and FIG. 3), row data of a page (“during a row activation operation, a word line is activated, and contents of the storage cells 170 coupled to the word line (i.e., the word-line selected row) are enabled onto the bit lines 169 and thereby transferred to the page buffer 147.” Para 0042 and FIG. 3);
receiving, by the first circuit (“page buffer 147” para 0042 and FIG. 3), first column data and second column data from the row data (“Referring to detail view 165, the selected column multiplexer 149 includes a set of multiplexer/demultiplexer circuits 164 that each enable read or write access to a respective column-address-selected column of storage elements within the page buffer 147 (column, for short); an operation referred to herein as a column access.” Para 0043 and FIG. 3);
sending, by the first circuit, the first column data and the second column data to a first output port of the first circuit (“In a read operation, the bank multiplexer 151 and column multiplexer 149 perform a multiplexing function by routing data from the selected column to the data interface 105A.” Para 0043 and FIG. 3).
As per dependent claim 2, Ware discloses the method of claim 1. Ware teaches wherein the sending comprises performing time division multiplexing (TDM) on the first column data and the second column data (“column data is transferred in response to the first column access request over the t.sub.CC interval starting at 215.” Para 0052 and FIG. 4. “The column ‘b’ data retrieved in response to the second column access request 211 is output onto the DQA and DQB signal paths over a t.sub.CC interval that begins at the conclusion of the column ‘a’ data transfer operation.” Para 0053 and FIG. 4. Here, time is divided into two slots. Column “a” data is transmitted starting at time 215. Column “b” data is transmitted over an interval that begins at the conclusion of the column “a” data transfer. Therefore, Ware explicitly teaches that column a and column b data are transmitted using TDM. “time-multiplexed column bus” para 0087).
As per dependent claim 3, Ware discloses the method of claim 1. Ware teaches wherein the first circuit comprises a column filter configured to: receive the first column data and the second column data from the row data; and output the first column data and the second column data to a first data path based on TDM (“In a read operation, the bank multiplexer 151 and column multiplexer 149 perform a multiplexing function by routing data from the selected column to the data interface 105A.” Para 0043 and FIG. 3. See FIG, 4 for TDM. Column “a” data is transmitted starting at time 215. Column “b” data is transmitted over an interval that begins at the conclusion of the column “a” data transfer. Therefore, Ware explicitly teaches that column a and column b data are transmitted using TDM. “time-multiplexed column bus” para 0087).
As per dependent claim 4, Ware discloses the method of claim 3. Ware teaches wherein the first circuit comprises a first memory configured to: receive the first column data and the second column data from the first data path; store the first column data and the second column data in a buffer in a first order; and output the first column data and the second column data in a second order that is different from the first order (“data for the two column access requests directed to low order banks, B0-B7, are transferred in interleaved fashion (i.e., B0-Ca, B1-Cc, B0-Ce, B1-Cg) in respective t.sub.CCp intervals and over a subset of the DQ links.” Para 0103).
As per dependent claim 5, Ware discloses the method of claim 4. Ware teaches wherein the first memory comprises random-access memory (RAM) (“dynamic random access memory (DRAM) device” para 0031).
As per dependent claim 6, Ware discloses the method of claim 1. Ware teaches wherein: the first output port of the first circuit is connected to a first input port of a scan circuit (“the data serializer 177 performs a multiplexing function by receiving a 128-bit read data value (i.e., column data) from the column decoder 103 via column data path 119 and delivering the read data to the transmitter 175 in the form of a sixteen byte stream.” Para 0044 and FIG. 3. See column data path 119.sub.0 in FIG. 3);
a second output port of the first circuit is connected to a second input port of the scan circuit (“the data serializer 177 performs a multiplexing function by receiving a 128-bit read data value (i.e., column data) from the column decoder 103 via column data path 119 and delivering the read data to the transmitter 175 in the form of a sixteen byte stream.” Para 0044 and FIG. 3. See column data path 119.sub.1 in FIG. 3).
As per dependent claim 7, Ware discloses the method of claim 6. Ware teaches wherein the first circuit groups the first column data with third column data output to the second output port (“data for the two column access requests directed to low order banks, B0-B7, are transferred in interleaved fashion (i.e., B0-Ca, B1-Cc, B0-Ce, B1-Cg) in respective t.sub.CCp intervals and over a subset of the DQ links.” Para 0103).
As per claims 12-16, these claims are respectively rejected based on arguments provided above for similar rejected claims 1-2, 6, 6, and 6. For processor and memory see para 0107 of Ware.
As per claims 17-20, these claims are respectively rejected based on arguments provided above for similar rejected claims 1-2, 6, and 6. For processor and memory see para 0107 of Ware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ware in view of APPA Skadron et al. US 2023/0072191 (“Skadron”).
As per dependent claim 8, Ware discloses the method of claim 7. Ware may not explicitly disclose, but in an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Skadron teaches wherein the scan circuit: performs a scan operation comprising a comparison of the first column data with the third column data; and outputs result data based on the scan operation (“The CPU scans the query sequences to generate k-mers, and for each k-mer, it makes a 12-byte request that contains the pattern, sequence ID, destination subarray ID, and other header information.” Para 0075).
Given the teaching of Skadron, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the scope of the invention of Ware with “wherein the scan circuit: performs a scan operation comprising a comparison of the first column data with the third column data; and outputs result data based on the scan operation”. The motivation would be that in-memory processing systems have potential to improve performance and efficiency of large-scale genome analysis tasks, para 0005 of Skadron.
As per dependent claim 9, Ware in combination with Skadron discloses the method of claim 8. Ware may not explicitly disclose, but Skadron teaches wherein the result data comprises an address for locating results of the scan operation (“The CPU scans the query sequences to generate k-mers, and for each k-mer, it makes a 12-byte request that contains the pattern, sequence ID, destination subarray ID, and other header information.” Para 0075).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ware and Skadron as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 9.
As per dependent claim 10, Ware in combination with Skadron discloses the method of claim 9. Ware may not explicitly disclose, but Skadron teaches wherein the result data comprises a length associated with the page (“The CPU scans the query sequences to generate k-mers, and for each k-mer, it makes a 12-byte request that contains the pattern, sequence ID, destination subarray ID, and other header information.” Para 0075).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Ware and Skadron as set forth in claim 8 is equally applicable to claim 9.
As per dependent claim 11, Ware in combination with Skadron discloses the method of claim 8. Ware teaches wherein the scan circuit performs a scan operation with respect to one or more columns of the row data (“the data serializer 177 performs a multiplexing function by receiving a 128-bit read data value (i.e., column data) from the column decoder 103 via column data path 119 and delivering the read data to the transmitter 175 in the form of a sixteen byte stream.” Para 0044 and FIG. 3. See column data path 119.sub.0 in FIG. 3).
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
/ROCIO DEL MAR PEREZ-VELEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights