DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file (CN202111491741.0 People’s Republic of China 12/08/2021; CN202210138758.6 People’s Republic of China 02/15/2022).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449, filed 10/07/2024, 02/24/2025, 06/12/2025, 06/18/2025, 07/09/2025, 08/01/2025, 01/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature “a request signal line….” as recited in claim 6; the feature “…authorization is not requested…authorization is granted…” as recited in claims 7-8; the feature “…a state machine…” as recited in claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use recite functional language but are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Apparatus claims 1, 10’s “medium die for” that is “configured to” perform recited operations;
Apparatus claims 11-20’s “medium die for” that is “configured to” perform recited operations.
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-20 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ware et al (US 10,846,252 B2 hereinafter “Ware”).
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses a storage medium (e.g., 100; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32) comprising at least two medium dies for (e.g., each processor have four DIMMs; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32) data transmission through a bus (e.g., via multiple channels; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the at least two medium dies are sequentially connected via signal lines to form a closed loop (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein levels of the signal lines are each controlled by two medium dies connected via the corresponding signal line (via multiple channels; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), and wherein the levels of the signal lines are used by the at least two medium dies to determine a sequence of performing data transmission through the bus (see for example in Figs. 1). The structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein each of the levels of the signal lines is a fixed level (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein a medium die in the at least two medium dies comprises a selector (e.g., a plurality of multiplexers “MUX”; in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25) and a register (e.g., register clock driver “RCD”; in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), the selector is configured to select a first end or a second end of the selector (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), the first end configures a level of a signal line associated with the register to a fixed level (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), and the second end indicates that the level of the signal line is controlled (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), based on a data transmission status, by two medium dies connected via the signal line (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein one of the two medium dies connected via the signal line comprises the selector and the register (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 5, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the two medium dies connected via the signal line each comprises the selector and the register (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 6, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the signal line comprises a request signal line and a feedback signal line (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the level of the signal line is a fixed level (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein a level of the request signal line is a first level indicating that authorization is not requested (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein a level of the feedback signal line is a second level indicating that authorization is granted (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), and wherein the authorization indicates that data transmission is allowed to be performed through the bus (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the level of the signal line is controlled by the two medium dies connected via the signal line based on a data transmission status (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein a level of the request signal line is a first level or a third level (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein the first level indicates that authorization is not requested and the third level indicates that authorization is requested (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein a level of the feedback signal line is a second level or a fourth level (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), wherein the second level indicates that authorization is granted and the fourth level indicates that authorization is not granted (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25), and wherein the authorization indicates that data transmission is allowed to be performed through the bus (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 9, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the storage medium further comprises a state machine configured to record a status of the medium die, the status of the medium die comprises an idle state, a ready state, a data transmission state, and a data transmission state of another medium die indicating that the another medium die followed by the medium die is performing data transmission (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 10, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the medium die comprises a first data pin and a second data pin, the bus comprises a first data bus and a second data bus, the first data pin is configured to be connected to the first data bus, and the second data pin is configured to be connected to the second data bus (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25); and the first data bus is used by the at least two medium dies to send data, and the second data bus is used for sending data to the at least two medium dies (see for example in Figs. 1-11, 26-32 related in Figs. 12-25). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Independent Claim 11, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses a storage element (e.g., 100; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32) comprising: a storage medium (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the storage medium comprises: at least two medium dies for (e.g., each processor have four DIMMs; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32) data transmission through a bus (e.g., via multiple channels; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), the at least two medium dies are sequentially connected via signal lines to form a closed loop (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and levels of the signal lines are each controlled by two medium dies connected via the corresponding signal line (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), and wherein the levels of the signal lines are used by the at least two medium dies to determine a sequence of performing data transmission through the bus (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and a controller being connected to the at least two medium dies via the bus (e.g., a memory controller of a processor; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the controller is configured to send a data transmission instruction to a first medium die in the at least two medium dies (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the first medium die is configured to: receive the data transmission instruction sent by the controller (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and transmit data and a data identifier corresponding to the data to the controller through the bus based on the data transmission instruction and a level of the signal line in the storage medium (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). The structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein a level of a first signal line in the signal lines is a fixed level (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), a level of a second signal line other than the first signal line in the signal lines is controlled by two medium dies connected via the second signal line based on a data transmission status (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), the first signal line is between the first medium die and a next medium die of the first medium die, and the data transmission instruction instructs the first medium die to transmit data (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); the first medium die is configured to complete preparation according to the data transmission instruction (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and the first medium die is configured to send the data and the data identifier to the controller through the bus in response to detecting that the first signal line is at the fixed level and determining (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), by using a level of a third signal line, that the first medium die does not authorize a previous medium die of the first medium die to allow data transmission to be performed through the bus (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the third signal line is between the first medium die and the previous medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 13, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the first medium die is further configured to: after the sending is completed and determining that the first medium die is no longer performing sending, in response to determining (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), by using the level of the third signal line, that the previous medium die requests authorization for allowing data transmission to be performed through the bus (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), control the level of the third signal line to authorize the previous medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 14, Ware, for example in Figs.1-32, discloses wherein a level of a first signal line in the signal lines is controlled by the first medium die and a next medium die of the first medium die based on a data transmission status (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), a level of a second signal line other than the first signal line in the signal lines is a fixed level, the first signal line is between the first medium die and the next medium die, and the data transmission instruction instructs the first medium die to transmit data (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); the first medium die is configured to complete preparation according to the data transmission instruction (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); the first medium die is configured to control the level of the first signal line to request authorization for allowing data transmission to be performed through the bus from the next medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), in response to determining, by using a level of a third signal line, that the first medium die does not authorize a previous medium die of the first medium die to allow the data transmission to be performed through the bus, wherein the third signal line is between the first medium die and the previous medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and the first medium die is configured to transmit the data and the data identifier corresponding to the data to the controller through the bus in response to determining, by using the level of the first signal line, that the next medium die has granted the authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 15, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the first medium die is further configured to: after the sending is completed, control the level of the first signal line to request the next medium die to cancel the authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and determine, by using the level of the first signal line, that the next medium die has canceled the authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 16, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the first medium die is configured to: before the first medium die completes the sending, and in response to determining, by using the level of the third signal line (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), that the previous medium die does not request authorization, control the level of the first signal line to request the next medium die to cancel the authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 17, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the first medium die is further configured to: before the first medium die completes the sending, and in response to determining, by using the level of the third signal line, that the previous medium die requests authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), control the level of the third signal line to authorize the previous medium die after the sending is completed (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 18, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the first medium die is further configured to: after it is determined, by using the level of the first signal line, that the next medium die has canceled the authorization, and in response to determining, by using the level of the third signal line (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), that the previous medium die requests authorization and the first medium die is not performing sending, control the level of the first signal line to request authorization from the next medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and control the level of the third signal line to authorize the previous medium die in response to determining, by using the level of the first signal line, that the next medium die has granted the authorization (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 19, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein the bus comprises a first data bus and a second data bus, wherein the first medium die is configured to send the data and the data identifier to the controller through the first data bus (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), and wherein the second data bus is used by the controller to send, to the at least two medium dies, data to be written (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 20, Ware, for example in Figs. 1-32, discloses wherein a level of each signal lines is a fixed level, and the data transmission instruction instructs the first medium die to perform preparation (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), and wherein the first medium die is configured to: complete the preparation according to the data transmission instruction in response to detecting that a first signal line and the third signal line are at the fixed level (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32), wherein the first signal line is between the first medium die and a next medium die of the first medium die, and the third signal line is between the first medium die and a previous medium die of the first medium die (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32); and transmit the data and the data identifier corresponding to the data to the controller through the bus under control of the controller (see for example in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-32). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Ware) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THA-O H BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-7357. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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, ALEXANDER SOFOCLEOUS can be reached at 571-272-0635. 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.
/THA-O H BUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825 03/06/2026