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 .
FINAL REJECTION
This Office Action addresses U.S. Patent Application No. 18/774,665, entitled “MEMORY INTERFACE CONTROLLER”, filed July 16, 2024.
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 22 have been amended. Claim 25 is newly added.
REQUIREMENT FOR INFORMATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.105
Regarding the previous requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate, it appears that applicant has replied with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56, in the response filed March 4, 2026. Applicant’s reply appears to be complete.
DRAWING OBJECTIONS
The following previous objections are withdrawn due to the amended drawings filed March 4, 2026.
(1) Figures 1D and 3 under 37 CFR 1.84(l),
(2) Figures 1C, 1D, 2A, 2C and 2E under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3),
(3) Figures 1B and 3 (Step 320) under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), and
(4) Figures 3 and 4.
The following objections are maintained.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because:
(1) Figures 1B (subscript) and 2B (subscript) are not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states, “Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.” Note for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
65
101
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
46
87
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image3.png
60
104
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(2) Figures 1B and 1D are not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states, “Numbers, letters, and reference characters … should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines.” Note for example:
PNG
media_image4.png
59
129
media_image4.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image5.png
69
137
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Further, in response to the amended drawings filed March 4, 2026, the following objection is made:
In Figure 1C, bottom right corner “All-0” is now cut off.
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.
SPECIFICATION
The previous objections to the specification are withdrawn due to the amendment filed March 4, 2026.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn due to the amendment and corresponding arguments filed March 4, 2026.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 1st PARAGRAPH
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.
Claims 1-25 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
With regard to claims 1-24, the claimed “per-read memory controllers” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation “per-read memory controller” is undefined in the specification. It is not a phrase well known in the prior art. There is no “plain and ordinary meaning” for this limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art may guess at what applicant means by “per-read memory controller”, but there would be several possible interpretations and the disclosure does little to narrow down which of these applications might be intended by applicants.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 2nd PARAGRAPH
The previous rejections of claims 1, 2, 12 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn due to the amendment and corresponding arguments filed March 4, 2026, with the following exception, which is maintained from the previous Office action.
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 1-25 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.
In claims 1-25, the scope of “per-read memory controllers” is unclear and undefined.
PRIOR ART
For at least the reasons explained above with regard to the rejections under 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph, the disclosure and claims are indefinite to the extent that they preclude any reasonable search and consideration on the merits of the claimed subject matter.
Significantly, the claims and disclosure rely heavily on a “per-read memory controllers”, but fail to define this limitation in a manner that allows the invention to be compared to prior art circuits, methods and systems.
Consequently, any rejections based on prior art (e.g., nonstatutory double patenting, 35 U.S.C. §102 or 35 U.S.C. §103) will be held in abeyance until (1) the disclosure is clarified at least to the extent that the subject matter of the claims is properly supported and/or (2) the claims are rewritten to remove the indefinite language and ambiguous descriptions of the intended subject matter of the invention.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The arguments attached to the amendment of March 4, 2026 have been carefully considered. As a result, several of the objections and some of the rejections have been withdrawn, as explained above.
Regarding the rejections that have been maintained, the examiner notes the examiner’s interview summary mailed February 6, 2026, which states, in part:
“Applicant's representative pointed out that "per-read" is not a term of art and that, in this regard, applicant is being their own lexicographer. Applicant's representative explained that each read command is treated separately, with a selector 104 dynamically assigning each command to different ones of per-read memory controllers 106 based on a clock edge. Applicant's representative pointed to paragraph [0017] of the specification and asked what more explanation could be needed for the claim term "per-read". The examiner noted that paragraphs [0016] and [0017] describe how the invention works, but do not actually define "per-read". To act as a lexicographer means to provide a concrete definition with a fixed scope for the new claim. The examiner believes that this could be done based on the subject matter of paragraphs [0016] and [0017], without adding new matter.”
As stated during the interview, a concrete definition for the new claim term “per-read” is required in the specification. Prosecution cannot move forward without this definition. As explained in the interview, it may be possible to amend the specification to include such a definition without adding new matter, because the subject matter of paragraphs [0016] and [0017] could serve as a basis for the definition.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
For all of the reasons explained above, none of the claims are deemed allowable at this time.
However, the examiner has done an informal search based on the description of the invention provided by applicant’s representative during the interview of February 3, 2026. At present, no prior art has been found that would teach claims 1-12, 17, 18, and 22-25 as described by applicant.
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 B. James Peikari at telephone number (571)272-4185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:30pm, 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/B. James Peikari/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights