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 1-14 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 03/06/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2024-033669 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449, filed 07/30/2024, 12/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 02/20/2025, 10/15/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 07/30/2024. These drawings are review and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-13’s “control section”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 § 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the target" in claim 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-14 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al (US 11,043,254 B2 hereinafter “Enomoto”).
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, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses a semiconductor memory device (e.g., semiconductor device 10; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-8), comprising: a control section (included blocks 12, 13, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-8), configured to control a normal refresh operation (via block 49, the refresh selection signal NR is a signal activated when the normal refresh operation is to be performed; in Figs. 2, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 3-6, 8) in response to a refresh request (e.g., refresh command; in Figs. 7A-7B related in Figs. 1-6, 8), wherein the normal refresh operation simultaneously refreshes every memory cell connected to a plurality of word lines (e.g., refresh operation for memory cell array 11; in Figs. 1, 3 related in Figs. 2, 4-8), and to control the execution of a row-hammer refresh operation after the normal refresh operation is performed at least once (via block 49, the refresh selection signal RHR is activated; in Figs. 2, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 3-6, 8).
The structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 2, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured to perform the row-hammer refresh operation in response to the refresh request (via command address input circuit 31 and included blocks 33, 12; in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-8, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 3, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured to perform the row-hammer refresh operation multiple times within a predetermined period, in response to the refresh request (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured to determine whether to perform the normal refresh operation or the row-hammer refresh operation after receiving the refresh request (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8; see Col. 4, lines 33+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 5, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured to determine whether to perform the normal refresh operation or the row-hammer refresh operation after receiving the refresh request (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8; see Col. 4, lines 33+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 6, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured not to perform the normal refresh operation when receiving the refresh request after the number of executions of the normal refresh operation reaches a predetermined value (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8; see Col. 4, lines 33+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 7, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured not to perform the normal refresh operation when receiving the refresh request after the normal refresh operation has been performed a predetermined number of times (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8; see Col. 4, lines 33+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section is further configured to perform the normal refresh operation multiple times within a predetermined period, in response to the refresh request (see for example in Figs. 1-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 4-6, 8; see Col. 4, lines 33+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 9, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses further comprising: a counter, configured to count the number of times that the normal refresh operation is performed in response to the refresh request (via multiple counters; in Figs. 2, 4-5 related in Figs. 1, 3, 6-8); wherein the control section is further configured to perform the row-hammer refresh operation whenever the number of times counted by the counter reaches a predetermined value (via multiple counters; in Figs. 2, 4-5 related in Figs. 1, 3, 6-8). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 10, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses further comprising a row decoder, configured to select the plurality of word lines that is a target of the normal refresh operation when a row address is input (e.g., One of the address registers 50 to 57 is selected by a selected point value SEL and the row address XADD stored in the selected one of the address registers 50 to 57 is output as the row address VADD; in Figs. 2-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 4-6, 8; see Col. 5, lines 42+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section further comprises: a first selection unit, configured to select a first row address input from outside when the normal refresh operation is not performed, and to select a second row address to become a target row address of the normal refresh operation when the normal refresh operation is performed (e.g., One of the address registers 50 to 57 is selected by a selected point value SEL and the row address XADD stored in the selected one of the address registers 50 to 57 is output as the row address VADD; in Figs. 2-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 4-6, 8; see Col. 5, lines 42+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section further comprises: a second selection unit, configured to select a row address selected by the first selection unit when the row-hammer refresh operation is not performed, and to select a third row address to become a target row address of the row-hammer refresh operation when the normal refresh operation is performed (e.g., One of the address registers 50 to 57 is selected by a selected point value SEL and the row address XADD stored in the selected one of the address registers 50 to 57 is output as the row address VADD; in Figs. 2-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 4-6, 8; see Col. 5, lines 42+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding claim 13, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses wherein the control section further comprises a row decoder (e.g., 12; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-8), configured to select the plurality of word lines to become targets of the normal refresh operation when the second selection unit selects the second row address (e.g., One of the address registers 50 to 57 is selected by a selected point value SEL and the row address XADD stored in the selected one of the address registers 50 to 57 is output as the row address VADD; in Figs. 2-3, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 4-6, 8; see Col. 5, lines 42+, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Enomoto) is substantially identical to the structure of the claims. MPEP 2112.01(I). The manner of operation does not distinguish this apparatus claim form the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II).
Regarding Independent Claim 14, Enomoto, for example in Figs. 1-8, discloses a method for controlling a semiconductor memory device (e.g., semiconductor device 10; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-8), comprising: using a control section of the semiconductor memory device (included blocks 12, 13, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-8) to control a normal refresh operation (via block 49, the refresh selection signal NR is a signal activated when the normal refresh operation is to be performed; in Figs. 2, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 3-6, 8) in response to a refresh request (e.g., refresh command; in Figs. 7A-7B related in Figs. 1-6, 8), wherein the normal refresh operation simultaneously refreshes every memory cell connected to a plurality of word lines (e.g., refresh operation for memory cell array 11; in Figs. 1, 3 related in Figs. 2, 4-8), and to control the execution of a row-hammer refresh operation after the normal refresh operation has been performed at least once (via block 49, the refresh selection signal RHR is activated; in Figs. 2, 7A-7B related in Figs. 1, 3-6, 8).
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 01/30/2026