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 .
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 1-20 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.
Referring to claims 1 and 20, the claims, overall, remain difficult to fully understand and interpret as presently recited. The specification appears to lack or omit detail to help understand what is being claimed.
Referring to claims 1-20, it is not clear what constitutes or defines how the recited term, “indicator”, should be interpreted. Aside from the Summary which is virtually a repeat of the claims as well as the description related to Figure 9 which also ambiguously uses the term, “indicator”, the term “indicator” does not appear to be recited anywhere else in the specification or drawings making it unclear what “indicator” is referring to. As an example, in claim 1, it is not clear how the claimed “indicator” is “coupled to” an “FSM” or how the “FSM” is “configured to assign each of a plurality of control status registers (CSRs) to each of a plurality of memory groups with the indicator.” It is also not clear how the claimed, “control status registers”, are “assigned…to each of a plurality of memory groups with the indicator”. On page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, applicant states, “That is, the ECC disable control signal is an indicator. This does not seem to align with the way the term, “indicator is used in the claims. In claim 1, “an indicator configured to implement an ECC disablement using an ECC disable control signal…” This language does not make it seem like the “indicator” is the “ECC disable control signal” rather a component or the like that perhaps generates the ECC disable control signal; like when a CPU generates an instruction, the instruction is not the CPU. The claim then states that “a FSM coupled to the indicator configured to use each of a plurality of CSRs for each of a plurality of memory groups with the ECC disable control signal. Again, this makes it seem like the indicator is a component connected to the FSM and the indicator is not the ECC disable signal itself. To add further confusion, in paragraph [0036] of the Specification, it states, “…the ECC disable signal 387 may be generated using predefined 256 CSRs which are programmed prior to application start. In one example, selection of which memory to disable may be performed by software based on the application or by hardware for independent disabling.” This description is interpreted that the ECC disable signal is somehow generated using the CSRs without any mention of an “indicator”. In claim 11, the claim recites, “assigning each of a plurality of CSRs…to an indicator” and “…according to the indicator in an assigned each of the plurality of CSRs? This makes it seem like the indicator is in the CSRs? These are just a few examples, in general across all claims, it is not clear what the metes and bounds are for the term, “indicator”, and the relationship of how the “indicator” functions/relates to other components such as the claimed “FSM”, “syndrome memory”, “group index”, etc.
Referring to claims 1-20, the recited, “CSRs” are also unclear. Applicant’s remarks have been considered, but are not persuasive. The description pertaining to Figures 2 and 3 mention “CSRs”, however, CSRs do not appear to be depicted in either Figure to clearly show how they are implemented in the claimed apparatus and/or corresponding method. This is in addition to the lack of clarity for the relationship between the CSRs, the “indicator”, and a “ECC disable control signal” explained above.
Referring to claims 7-20, the claimed term, “group index”, is also not clear. Applicant’s remarks have been considered, but are not persuasive. The specification and drawings describe several tables (e.g. Figures 5, 6, and 7), but none of these are referred to as a “group index”. It is also not clear how the “group index” is initialized to zero or what is a “maximum group index” as well as how a “group index” is “compared to” a “maximum group index”. In Applicant’s Remarks, it states, “a group index is an index or label for one of a plurality of memory groups, where each memory group includes a plurality of memories. First, a group index as a label was not described in the specification as filed. In addition, Figures 5 and 7 show a memory disable index table and a memory utilization table, respectively. They both show memory groups? Are either of these tables considered equivalent to a “group index”? Or is a “group index” something else that is not depicted. One interpreting the metes and bounds of the claims is guessing at what the term “group index” encompasses. The claimed “initializing to zero” and “comparing to a maximum group index” are not depicted or explained in a way one gets any clarity on what is a “group index”.
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0229724 A1 to Bains et al (herein Bains). (*Given the number of 112 issues, the claims were interpreted as best understood by the Examiner).
Referring to claim 1, Bains discloses an apparatus comprising: an indicator configured to implement an error correction coding (ECC) disablement using an error correction coding (ECC) disable control signal (paragraphs [0040-0047] & Figure 1, an ECC disable signal is sent to activate a retry command mode per [0040]); and
a finite state machine (FSM) coupled to the indicator configured to use each of a plurality of control status registers (CSRs) for each of a plurality of memory groups with the ECC disable control signal (paragraphs [0040-0047] & Figure 1, Memory Controller 120 is effectively equivalent to an FSM which sends a retry command to activate a retry command mode that is stored in each register 136 for each memory group 130; the retry command disables ECC; paragraph [0152] explains an FSM can be used for showing the flow of states).
Referring to claim 2, Bains discloses further comprising a syndrome memory coupled to the FSM, the syndrome memory configured to implement a dynamic error correction coding (ECC) disablement of a plurality of data words according to the indicator (paragraph [0095-0098], syndromes decoded and stored containing errors effectively triggers the disablement of ECC in a retry mode that is then activated).
Referring to claim 3, Bains discloses wherein the dynamic ECC disablement suppresses a syndrome word generation for each of the plurality of data words (paragraph [0095-0098] & Figure 7, retry command 770 suppressed a syndrome word generation since it disables ECC on a retry).
Referring to claim 4, Bains wherein the indicator is governed by a compute workload (Figure 1, the ECC disablement is a result of a compute workload containing errors).
Referring to claim 6, Bains discloses further comprising a data memory coupled to the FSM, the data memory configured to store the plurality of data words (paragraph [0062], memory elements 312/314 of Figure 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The responses to the arguments have been woven into the updated 112 rejections above to attempt to better explain the indefinite issues.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights