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 .
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action addresses U.S. Patent Application No. 18/842,856, entitled “MEMORY CONTROLLER AND MEMORY CONTROL METHOD”, filed August 30, 2024, which is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2023/007482 with an international filing date of March 1, 2023, and which claims priority from Japanese Patent Application: JP 2022-035099, filed March 8, 2022.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
DRAWING OBJECTIONS
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because:
(1) Figures 1-7 include:
(a) brackets around the view numbers and
(b) view numbers that are smaller than the reference lettering.
These are not in accordance with MPEP 37 CFR 1.84(u)(2), which states, “Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.”
(2) 1, 3, and 5-7 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.”
(a) Figures 1 and 3 include boxes that are too small to allow the text to be written properly, such as:
PNG
media_image1.png
112
100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image2.png
71
102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) Figures 5-7 include several examples of text that crosses or mingles with the lines in the drawings, such as:
PNG
media_image3.png
112
118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(3) Figures 5-7 are not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(h), which states “all views of the drawing must be grouped together and arranged on the sheet(s) without wasting space, preferably in an upright position, clearly separated from one another”. In these drawings, the page numbers cross the area with the view numbers.
(4) Figures 1 and 3 are not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), which states, “the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.” However, Figure 1 has been indicated by the disclosure to be prior art, and Figure 3 has been indicated by the disclosure to be an embodiment of the invention. Yet both share several reference characters, even though one is a prior art system and one is a system of the invention.
(5) Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In the abstract of the disclosure:
(a) The legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided. Note “configured to”.
(b) The abstract includes several unexplained acronyms, such as “RAA”, “ACT” and note, “change tRRD, tFAW, or t32AW to a longer value”.
(c) “to recover the changed value to a value before changed” is not clear, as several values were mentioned.
(2) The title of the invention is not descriptive of the claimed invention. For example, the claims require a memory controller for a DRAM, a counter for counting the number of issued commands, and a command scheduler for selectively changing an interval for issuing commands.
(3) The specification must be amended to incorporated new reference numbers for Figure 3, in accordance with the drawings changes to distinguish from the elements of Figure 1, as required above.
(4) The specification is required to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” However, the present specification includes numerous errors in English idiom.
Some examples of such language of the specification are:
“In recent years, it has been known, as a process of manufacturing dynamic random access memories (DRAMs) has been finely divided, that such a phenomenon called row hammer occurs that causes, in a case where accesses to a certain address have occurred continuously, a piece of data at another address physically adjacent to the address to change” ¶ [0002] is confusing.
“In the new standard, a rolling accumulated ACT (RAA) counter is set per bank” ¶ [0004] should be more clearly explained, including the meaning of “ACT”, such as “A RAA (Rolling Accumulated ACT) counter is a mechanism in DDR5/LPDDR5 memory controllers that tracks the number of activations (i.e., ACT commands) per bank or memory to mitigate row hammer attacks.”
“in a case where” has awkward use throughout the description and in most of these occurrences should be replaced with “when”, for clarity. For example, “When a memory controller is designed” vs “In a case where a memory controller is designed”, ¶ [0005].
“take measures against” should replace “take a measure against” wherever it appears.
“to recover the changed value to a value before changed” is confusing.
In ¶ [0010], “steps” or “functions” or “purposes” should replace “acts”.
Note that these are just some of examples of many errors. The entire specification must be revised to remove such errors in translation.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1-4 are objected to because they contain similar errors in clarity and English idiom described above for the specification:
In claims 1 and 3, “to count the number of activation (ACT) commands that have been issued” should replace “to count number of issuance of ACT commands”
In claims 1 and 3, “when” should replace “in a case where”, for each occurrence.
In claims 1 and 3, “becomes” should replace “has become”, for each occurrence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
An application may include one or more claim limitations that use the words “means for” and also limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) use(s) a generic placeholder.
Three Prong Analysis
To invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
(A) Regarding Prong (A), the MPEP states:
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....
The claim limitations listed below do not use the language "means" or "step". However, each of these may be found to be a generic placeholder.
memory controller
dynamic random access memory (DRAM)
rolling accumulated ACT (RAA) counter
command scheduler
Thus, these limitations meet Prong (A) of the analysis.
(B) Regarding Prong (B), the MPEP states:
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"...
The claim limitations listed below may be modified by functional language, as shown.
memory controller (“configured to”)
dynamic random access memory (DRAM) (not modified by functional language)
rolling accumulated ACT (RAA) counter (“configured to”)
command scheduler (“configured to”)
Any limitations which have been marked “not modified by functional language” do not meet Prong (B) and will not be further considered in this analysis. All other limitations meet Prong (B) of the analysis and must be considered in the following step.
(C) Regarding Prong (C), the MPEP states:
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
With regard to where the limitations may be found in the disclosure:
memory controller (note the memory controller 20 of Figure 3: “The memory controller 20 includes, for example, as illustrated in FIG. 3 , a command arbitrator 21, a command scheduler 22, an RAA counter 23, and an LPDDR-PHY”, ¶ [0049])
rolling accumulated ACT (RAA) counter (“The RAA counter 23 is configured, for example, each time a count signal is inputted from the command scheduler 22, to add +1 to the count value (the RAA count value) of the RAA counter 23”, ¶ [0058])
command scheduler (“The command scheduler 22 is configured, for example, each time an ACT command is issued, to output a count signal to the RAA counter 23”, ¶ [0058])
Thus, the limitations listed above do not meet Prong (C) of the analysis and thus do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 2nd PARAGRAPH
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 1-4 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 claim 1, the following language is confusing:
“a command scheduler configured, in a case where a count value of the RAA counter has become greater than a first threshold value, to change an issuance interval tRRD for ACT commands, a period of time tFAW allowing four ACT commands to be present, or a period of time t32AW allowing 32 ACT commands to be present in a graphics double data rate type six synchronous dynamic random-access memory (GDDR6) standard to a longer value, and, in a case where the count value of the RAA counter has become smaller than a second threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value, to recover the changed value to a value before changed.”
(1) It is unclear what “a period of time tFAW” is modifying,
(2) “or a period of time t32AW” presents an alternative, but it is not clear to what.
(3) “the changed value” has no antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is rejected for similar reasons. Claims 2 and 4 are rejected as being dependent on their respective base claims.
PRIOR ART
For at least the reasons explained above, the disclosure and claims are indefinite to the extent that they preclude a reasonable search and consideration on the merits of the claimed subject matter.
Several prior art references cited with this Office action appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the claims, such as Ho, KR102385443 B1 or Lee, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200342934, or Gans, U.S. Patent No. 11,037,617. However, mapping these references to the present claims is not possible, without a clear interpretation of the meaning of these claims.
As an example, with regard to claim 1, the operation of the command scheduler appears to be critical to the invention, but the claims fail to define this limitation in a manner that allows the invention to be compared to prior art command schedulers.
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 (2) the claims are rewritten to remove the indefinite language and ambiguous descriptions of the intended subject matter of the invention.
CONCLUSION
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