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 (CN202410488241.9 People’s Republic of China 04/22/2024).
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 08/30/2024. These drawings are review and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrase “disclosure” in page 1, line 1, which is implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 14, 16’s “peripheral circuit” 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.
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 2, 4, 7, 17-18 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.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, 17-18 are recite the limitation(s) “…If the uneven refresh flag signal indicates to perform…”, yet no limitation is provided “…if the uneven refresh flag signal the uneven refresh flag signal is NOT indicate to perform indicates to perform…”. This issue is raised because the “if” conditional, by its very nature, exhibits alternative steps in the event the “if” conditional fails; the alternative step(s) may, or may not, be limited to not performed any step(s). Ergo, the meets and bounds of the claim have not been clearly established. To remediate this issue, applicant must remove the conditional or include the alternative step(s) when the conditional fails.
Claim Objections
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, 17-18: Replace "if" with "when" to indicate that the condition will be encountered (positive active step) versus the usage of "if" that in does not imply a positive active step since the usage of "if" does not imply that the condition will ever be encountered.
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, 14-15, 16 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuma (US 2020/0211633 A1).
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, Okuma, for example in Figs. 1-9, discloses a memory device (e.g., memory device 100; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-9), comprising:
an array of memory cells (e.g., memory array; in Figs. 1-2 related in Figs. 3-9) including multiple word lines (e.g., WLn; in Figs. 1-2 related in Figs. 3-9), and memory cells coupled to the word lines (e.g., MCs; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-9); and
a peripheral circuit (e.g., included blocks 105, 110, 115, 120, 130, 140, 145, 180, 185; in Figs. 1, 3 related in Figs. 2, 4-9) coupled to the multiple word lines (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9), and configured to:
determine an aggressor row (e.g., WL 222; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-9); and perform an uneven refresh for a victim row located on one side of the aggressor row (e.g., implied that are word lines immediately adjacent to only one side of the aggressor word lines, can identify victim word line ‘WLn-1’ or ‘WLn+1’; in Figs. 2-4 related in Figs. 1, 5-9).
The structure in of the prior art (Okuma) 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, Okuma, for example in Figs. 1-9, discloses wherein, distances from word lines located on both sides of the aggressor row to the aggressor row are not equal (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9, as discussed above); and the peripheral circuit is further configured to take a word line located on one side closer to the aggressor row as the victim row to perform the uneven refresh (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Okuma) 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, Okuma, for example in Figs. 1-9, discloses wherein the memory device includes a Dynamic Random Access Memory (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9, as discussed above). Also, the structure in of the prior art (Okuma) 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 16, Okuma, for example in Figs. 1-9, discloses a memory system (e.g., 980; in Fig. 9 related in Figs. 1-8), comprising: one or more memory devices (e.g., 900; in Fig. 9 related in Figs. 1-8), each comprising: an array of memory cells (e.g., memory array; in Figs. 1-2 related in Figs. 3-9) including multiple word lines (e.g., WLn; in Figs. 1-2 related in Figs. 3-9), and memory cells coupled to the word lines (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9); and a peripheral circuit (e.g., included blocks 105, 110, 115, 120, 130, 140, 145, 180, 185; in Figs. 1, 3 related in Figs. 2, 4-9) coupled to the multiple word lines (see for example in Figs. 1-3 related in Figs. 4-9), and configured to: determine an aggressor row (e.g., WL 222; in Fig. 2 related in Figs. 1, 3-9); and perform an uneven refresh for a victim row located on one side of the aggressor row (e.g., implied that are word lines immediately adjacent to only one side of the aggressor word lines, can identify victim word line ‘WLn-1’ or ‘WLn+1’; in Figs. 2-4 related in Figs. 1, 5-9); and a memory controller coupled to the memory devices and configured to control the memory device (e.g., memory controller is connected to memory device 100; in Fig. 1 related in Figs. 2-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-13, 17 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, any intervening claims and overcome the objection set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior arts of record fail to teach or suggest a memory device as recited in claim 2, and particularly, wherein the peripheral circuit includes: a row hammer refresh control circuit configured to generate a row hammer refresh signal and an uneven refresh flag signal according to a refresh command signal and an adjustment signal; an aggressor row address determination circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal, output an address of an aggressor row; and a row hammer refresh address generation circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit and the aggressor row address determination circuit respectively, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal and the uneven refresh flag signal, generate an address for a row hammer refresh corresponding to the address of the aggressor row; wherein, if the uneven refresh flag signal indicates to perform the uneven refresh for the victim row located on the one side of the aggressor row, then the address for the row hammer refresh includes an address of the victim row located on the one side of the aggressor row.
Regarding claim 17, the prior arts of record fail to teach or suggest a memory device as recited in claim 17, and particularly, wherein the peripheral circuit includes: a row hammer refresh control circuit configured to generate a row hammer refresh signal and an uneven refresh flag signal according to a refresh command signal and an adjustment signal; an aggressor row address determination circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal, output an address of an aggressor row; and a row hammer refresh address generation circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit and the aggressor row address determination circuit respectively, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal and the uneven refresh flag signal, generate an address for a row hammer refresh corresponding to the address of the aggressor row; wherein, if the uneven refresh flag signal indicates to perform the uneven refresh for the victim row located on the one side of the aggressor row, then the address for the row hammer refresh includes an address of the victim row located on the one side of the aggressor row.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. Okuma (US 2020/0211633 A1), Cowles et al (US 11,798,610 B2), Wu et al (US 11,749,331 B2), taken individually or in combination, do not teach the claimed invention having the following limitations, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations:
Per claim 1, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combination in the prior art to a refresh address generation circuit, comprising: a row hammer refresh control circuit configured to generate a row hammer refresh signal and an uneven refresh flag signal according to a refresh command signal and an adjustment signal; an aggressor row address determination circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal, output an address of an aggressor row; and a row hammer refresh address generation circuit coupled to the row hammer refresh control circuit and the aggressor row address determination circuit respectively, and configured to, in response to the row hammer refresh signal and the uneven refresh flag signal, generate an address for a row hammer refresh corresponding to the address of the aggressor row; wherein, if the uneven refresh flag signal indicates to perform an uneven refresh for a victim row located on one side of the aggressor row, then the address for the row hammer refresh includes the address of the victim row located on the one side of the aggressor row.
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 03/26/2026