Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21-26, 29-34, and 37-40 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “a first instantaneous data rate”, “a second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 22 recites limitation of “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 23 recites limitation of “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 24 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 25 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 26 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 29 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “a first instantaneous data rate”, “a second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 30 recites limitation of “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 31 recites limitation of “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 32 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 33 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 34 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 37 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “a first instantaneous data rate”, “a second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 38 recites limitation of “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 39 recites limitation of “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 40 recites limitation of “the intermittent burst of data” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support.
Enablement
Claims 21-26, 29-34, and 37-40 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.
Claim 21 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “a first instantaneous data rate”, “a second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 22 recites limitation “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 23 recites limitation “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 24 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 25 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 26 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 29 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “first instantaneous data rate”, “second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 30 recites limitation “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 31 recites limitation “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 32 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 33 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 34 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 37 recites limitations of “an instantaneous data rate”, “a first instantaneous data rate”, “a second instantaneous data rate”, and “intermittent bursts” which were 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 38 recites limitation “a third instantaneous data rate which is greater than the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 39 recites limitation “the third instantaneous data rate is an integral multiple of the second instantaneous data rate” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 40 recites limitation “the intermittent burst of data” 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. Examiner searched the detailed description provided by applicant, but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III):
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 1 recites “responsive to detecting a change in an instantaneous data rate of a first interface of a memory controller from a first instantaneous data rate to a second instantaneous data rate, communicating intermittent bursts of data over a second interface of the memory controller, wherein an average data rate of the intermittent bursts of data is substantially equal to the second instantaneous data rate” [Mathematical concepts; mathematical calculation; Mental process; concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)]. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no controller and/or processor is performing a control process. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mentioned “a memory controller” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea and therefore the claim is not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 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 inventio 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 21-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsern et al (US Pub. 2001/0047493; hereinafter Tsern).
As per claim 21, Tsern discloses A method, comprising: responsive to detecting a change in an instantaneous data rate of a first interface of a memory controller from a first instantaneous data rate to a second instantaneous data rate, communicating intermittent bursts of data over a second interface of the memory controller, wherein an average data rate of the intermittent bursts of data is substantially equal to the second instantaneous data rate [Abstract; Fig. 2A, 3, 7-9; para 0023-0024, 0029-0030, 0032, 0039, 0043, 0047-0052; monitoring bus traffic on a programmed microprocessor (external to the memory circuit) and based on the amount of bandwidth being used (data rate), the monitor circuit 158 selects the fast clock or the slow clock for the memory interface 142].
As per claim 29, Tsern discloses an integrated circuit (IC), comprising: a first circuit to, responsive to detecting a change in an instantaneous data rate of a first interface of the IC from a first instantaneous data rate to a second instantaneous data rate, communicate intermittent bursts of data over a second interface of the IC, wherein an average data rate of the intermittent bursts of data is substantially equal to the second instantaneous data rate [Abstract; Fig. 2A, 3, 7-9; para 0023-0024, 0029-0030, 0032, 0039, 0043, 0047-0052; monitoring bus traffic on a programmed microprocessor (external to the memory circuit) and based on the amount of bandwidth being used (data rate), the monitor circuit 158 selects the fast clock or the slow clock for the memory interface 142].
As per claim 37, Tsern discloses an integrated circuit, comprising: a first interface; a second interface; a first circuit to detect a change in an instantaneous data rate of the first interface from a first instantaneous data rate to a second instantaneous data rate; and a second circuit to transmit, receive, or both transmit and receive intermittent bursts of data over the second interface responsive to the first circuit detecting the change, wherein an average data rate of the intermittent bursts of data is substantially equal to the second instantaneous data rate [Abstract; Fig. 2A, 3, 7-9; para 0023-0024, 0029-0030, 0032, 0039, 0043, 0047-0052; monitoring bus traffic on a programmed microprocessor (external to the memory circuit) and based on the amount of bandwidth being used (data rate), the monitor circuit 158 selects the fast clock or the slow clock for the memory interface 142].
As per claims 24 and 32, Tsern discloses wherein the communicating the intermittent bursts of data over the second interface comprises: sending a read operation over the second interface [Abstract; para 0006; memory interface; read operation]; and receiving a response corresponding to the read operation over the second interface [Abstract; para 0006; memory interface; read operation].
As per claims 25 and 33, Tsern discloses wherein the communicating the intermittent bursts of data over the second interface comprises sending data corresponding to a write operation over the second interface [Abstract; para 0006; memory interface; write operation].
As per claims 26, 34, and 40, Tsern discloses wherein the communicating the intermittent bursts of data over the second interface includes alternating the second interface between an active state and a powered-down state [Fig. 7-9; para 0023-0024, 0029-0030, 0039, 0043, 0047, 0049-55; automatically turning on/off certain interface].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 27-28, 30-31, 35-36, and 38-39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-5978891 discloses a counter which detects the number of continuous data inputted/outputted through the data input/output terminals, by counting a change in the clock signal, to stop an oscillation operation of the self-excited oscillator when the counted number reaches a predetermined count value, in a burst mode in which a plurality of continuous data to be transferred in response to an access request are transferred in synchronism with the clock signals.
US-5901101 discloses a semiconductor memory device comprising a burst mode of operation.
US-20080172515 discloses a memory controller with an interface for providing a connection to a plurality of memory devices at least one of said plurality of memory devices supporting burst mode data transfers.
N. JP-2003051190 discloses semiconductor memory device, device and method for setting burst mode to the memory device.
O. CN-155016 discloses a method and device to improve processor performance by using a continuous burst mode of fast (flash) memory of.
P. CN-101198941 discloses a method of for the memory connected to the network, via the first interface for receiving and transmitting data flow, the first interface connected with the memory controller and the network flow the data flow control between the network and the memory storage unit, temporarily storing at least one part of said data flow, managing temporarily stored in the buffer and the data stream is at least one of dynamically allocated buffers in the data stream in the buffer; said flow memory controller connected to the memory through the second interface and exchange data with the memory in a burst mode, is the size of at least one of determining a buffer in the data stream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURESH K SURYAWANSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-3668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at 5712729774. 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.
/SURESH SURYAWANSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights