DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on October 2nd, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments filed on October 2nd, 2025, have been carefully considered.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 12-15 have been canceled.
Claims 21-24 have been added as new.
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are currently pending in the instant application.
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. 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claims are drawn to “a plurality of contact blocks, each of the plurality of contact blocks comprising a set of third ports configured for communication of data with a plurality of memory dies and a fourth port configured for communication of commands with the plurality of memory dies, wherein, for each of the plurality of contact blocks, each third port of the set of third ports is coupled with one of the first set of controllers or one of the second set of controllers, and each of the fourth ports are common to the one of the first set of controllers and the one of the second set of controllers”. Where the examiner has determined the limitation to define “a set of third ports” and “a fourth port”. The claim later states “each of the fourth ports” however the claim only established a single fourth port. The claim does not clearly establish a set of fourth ports. Therefore, the examiner has determined the claim to be indefinite relating to the number of fourth ports. The examiner suggests the applicant amend the claims to clearly establish both a set of third ports and a set of fourth ports.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, the claims are also drawn to the limitation “each of the plurality of contact blocks comprising a set of third ports configured for communication of data with a plurality of memory dies and a fourth port configured for communication of commands with the plurality of memory dies”. This limitation leads to multiple interruptions is the limitation intended to mean a set of third ports and a “single” fourth port, or is the “set” meant to include both the third and fourth ports. Because the language leads multiple interpretations the examiner has deemed the claim to be indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 16-24 would be allowable upon overcoming the above 112 rejection.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach having multiple third and fourth ports in a set that are then coupled to either the first or second set of multiple controllers. The claims state each of the fourth ports are common to the one of the first set of controllers and the one of the second set of controllers.
Regarding claims 16 and 21, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach a set of third ports and fourth ports where the set of third ports is made up of a first subset of third ports and is located in a first portion of the memory interface block and the second subset of third ports is located in the second portion of the memory interface blocks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kajigaya [US2019/0042120] Kajigaya teaches multiple memory dies connected to multiple channels through two ports where the ports has command lines and data lines.
Brewer [US2020/0194412] Brewer teaches 3D stacked memory with spare functional blocks that can be used to repair failed functional blocks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC CARDWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1379. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10-6pm 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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached on (571) 272-4204. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC CARDWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139