DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 6/2/2026 for application 18/886,542 that is a continuation of 17/464,516 filed 9/16/2024.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 13 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, and 17-20 are cancelled. No claims are new. Thus Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-16 have been examined.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
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.
Claims 6 and 8-12 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.
Claims 6 and 8-12 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 claims 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Examiner is unable to find support for “examine each memory bank in a portion of a memory device” “to make a first determination”. The instant application discloses “examining each memory bank in a portion of a memory device” and “making a first determination of whether at least one particular memory bank … is active”. However it does not disclose examining each memory bank to make a first determination. Similarly, the instant application does not disclose “examining each memory bank in the portion of the memory device to make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active” and examiner has interpreted this to claim “examining each memory bank in the portion of memory device and to make a third determination”. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Regarding claim 6, Examiner is unable to find support “make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active… the third determination is made immediately after the oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler with no scheduling actions occurring between the oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank being added to the command scheduler and the third determination being made”. This limitation requires that following the oldest row command, no other schedule actions (to any memory bank) can occur. However, as can be seen from Fig. 4, after adding the oldest command to the open row of B, the system processes the next bank and determining if the next bank is active. However, this is a schedule activity before making a third determination that is directed toward “the at least one particular memory bank”, i.e. the original memory bank. ”. Examiner requests the applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Claims 8-12 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from respective base claim 6 that has been rejected to and fail to cure the deficiencies of base claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 13 is 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 claim 13, the claim recites the limitation “a third determination of whether the memory bank is active… in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank is active and the row of the at least one particular memory bank does not have a row command, determine whether either a close page mode is enabled.. ” without clearly identify which “determining” the step “in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank is active…” refers to and does not clearly identify the subsequent “determine whether either a close page mode is enabled”. Thus the claim is indefinite.
Examiner suggests applicant amend the claim along the lines of “in response to determining that at least one particular memory bank is active and the row of the at least one particular memory bank does not have a row command at the third determination step, perform a seventh determination that determines
Reasons for Not Applying Art
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to …
a third additional determination is made whether a row of the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding row command in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein: (e.g. Fig. 6 step 629)
a fourth additional determination is made whether the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding read command in response to determining that the row of the at least one particular memory bank has the corresponding row command, wherein: (e.g. Fig. 6 step 652).
an oldest row command for the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank does not have the corresponding read command; or (e.g. Fig. 6 step 654)
a fifth additional determination is made whether an oldest read command corresponds to an active row of the at least one particular memory bank in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding read command, wherein: (e.g. Fig. 6 step 656)
the oldest row command for the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the oldest read command corresponds to an active row of the at least one particular memory bank; or (e.g. Fig. 6 step 654)
a first precharge command for the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the oldest read command does not correspond to the active row of the at least one particular memory bank; (e.g. Fig. 6 step 633)
make a third determination of whether the memory bank is active, wherein: (e.g. Fig. 6 step 627)
the third determination is made after either the oldest row command for the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler (e.g. Fig. 6 step 654) or the first precharge command for the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler, (Fig. 6 step 633)”.
The claims recite limitations described by elements of Fig. 6 highlighted in yellow below from the instant application:
PNG
media_image1.png
471
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14-16 are not disclosed in the prior art based on their dependence from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Takamura (Takamura US 2015/0026375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A system, comprising: (Takamura Fig. 5 and [0034] that discloses Fig. 5 is an example of a computer system implementing the inventive concepts.)
a memory component having a plurality of memory banks; and (Takamura Fig. 5 that shows DRMA 107 and para [0006] that disclose DRAM are composed of a plurality of banks, and each bank is composed of pages.)
a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory component, to: (Takamura Fig. 5 showing memory controller 104 that is detailed in Fig. 6 that contains Control Unit 141 that controls the DRAM.)
make a first determination of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks is active, (Takamura [0008] discloses that an active memory bank is an open memory bank. Takamura [0040]-[0042] discloses the control unit 141 determines if a page is open/active based on information in a page holding information unit that tracks what pages are open.) wherein an activate command for a row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to a command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is not active (Takamura Fig. 6 and [0039]-[0044] that discloses the control unit instructs the unit to issue a page open command if the bank is closed. Fig. 1 step 120 and para [0009] discloses if the page is not active, the system will first issue an activate command as displayed at step 120 to open the page. ) or a first additional determination is made whether there is a row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active; (this limitation claims an “or” limitation, and is disclosed when either a first or first additional determination is made. The examiner has provided art for the former, “a first determination”.)
make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein: (Takamura Fig. 1B and [0010] that discloses there may be a second command that is accessed and the system determines if at least one particular memory bank is active when it determine if a page should be closed at step 125.)
the second determination for the at least one particular memory bank is made after the activate command is added to the command scheduler and after the first determination, (Takamura Fig. 1B and [0010] that discloses that step 125 there may be a second command. Takamura [0039]-[0044] discloses that the system will make a determination for each command if the command is active/open and to which row it is active. Thus there is a second determination for the second command 125 scheduled by the control unit 141 after the determination to issue an activate a command at step 123.) the second determination, or a third determination is made for a remainder of the plurality of memory banks; and (this “or” limitation is met when a first, second,. Or third determination is made. Examiner has provided art for the first determination.)
an oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active and determining there is a row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank; (Takamura Fig. 1B and paras [0010] and [0042] that discloses if the page currently open is to the same page as a previous CMD 124, the next command (such as CMD 127 of Fig. 1B is simply issued without a PRE 125 command or ACT 126 command. Since there may only be one pending command when the second CMD 127 is scheduled, the second command will corresponding to the oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank.) or
a second additional determination is made whether a close page mode is enabled or an open row timer has expired on the row of the at least one particular memory bank in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank is active and determining that there is no row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank; (this “or” limitation is disclosed when oldest row command is added to the command scheduler, or a second additional determination is made. Examiner has provided art for the latter.)
…execute a command in the command scheduler in response to determining that the command is executable. (Takamura [0010] discloses at step 127 the system schedules CMD 127 in response to the completion of the Pre 125 command and the ACT 126 command, thus in response to determining the command is executable.)
However, Takamura does not explicitly disclose a third determination. Thus does not explicitly disclose make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein:
the third determination for the at least one particular memory bank is made after the oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler and after the first determination,
the second determination, or the third determination is made for a remainder of the plurality of memory banks; and
a precharge command of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to the close page mode being enabled or the open row timer being expired; or
each command in the command scheduler is examined to determine whether a command in the command scheduler can be executed in response to the close page mode not being enabled or the open row timer not being expired; and
While Takamura does not explicitly teach a third determination. Although the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effectively filed data of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, the invention is not patentable. See MPEP 2141.02 Differences Between Prior Art and Claimed Invention [R-01.2024].
Takamura suggests make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein: (Takamura [0005]-[0006] discloses there may be a multitude of memory accesses that establish an access pattern. Thus Takamura [0039]-[0044] suggests there may be a third determination for a third access to a memory bank.)
the third determination for the at least one particular memory bank is made after the oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler and after the first determination, (Takamura [0005]-[0006] and [0039]-[0034] discloses there may be a third access may be made at any time, thus after CMD 172 is added in Fig. 1B, which is an oldest row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank added to the command scheduler by the control unit 141 following the sequences of events in Fig. 1B for a scenario when CMD 172 is a page hit to CMD 124.)
the second determination, or the third determination is made for a remainder of the plurality of memory banks; and (this “or” limitation is met when the first, second, or third determination is made. Examiner has provided art for the first determination.)-
a precharge command of the at least one particular memory bank is added to the command scheduler in response to the close page mode being enabled or the open row timer being expired; (Takamura [0046] discloses a page close command may be added following each access to the memory based on an AutoPageClose function configuration (in response to the close page mode being enabled).) or
each command in the command scheduler is examined to determine whether a command in the command scheduler can be executed in response to the close page mode not being enabled or the open row timer not being expired; and (this “or” limitation is met when a precharge command is added, or each command in the command scheduler is examined. Examiner has provided art for the former.)
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to consider all possible memory request combinations given a POSITA would know that request to a memory may target different memory banks and memory pages, and while there may be statistical patterns, they certainly may come in any order and there may be three requests to the same memory bank. Considering three requests to the same memory bank is a simple substitution of one know element for another (one combination of memory requests arrival combinations) to obtain predictable results (To process the combination per the inventive concepts of Takamura].)
Regarding claim 2, Takamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Takamura further teaches wherein the activate command is for the row of the at least one particular memory bank that is accessed by an oldest command for the memory bank. (; (Takamura Fig. 1B and paras [0010] and [0039]-[0044]. See also Takamura Fig. 5 and [0037]-[0038] that discloses the commands are processed in the order of arrival. Since there may only be one pending command when the second CMD 127 is scheduled, the activate command such as 123 ACT is for the row of the at least one particular memory bank accessed by CMD 124 that is accessed by an oldest command for the memory bank (i.ee. CMD 124).)
Regarding claim 3, Takamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Takamura further teaches wherein the processing device is to execute the command in the command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active, the row of the at least one particular memory bank does not have a corresponding row command, and either the close page mode is enabled or the open row timer has expired. (Takamura Fig. 2 and para [0028]-[0029] discloses the system may process (i.e. write) data in sequential pages and after each page (i.e. after each row) write command is issued, the system automatically performs a page close. Thus the system of Takamura [0038]-[0044] will determine the page is open (is active), the page/row command has been completed (thus the row of the at least one particular memory bank does not have a corresponding row command given it has completed and the next command is to the next row), and the system is configured to close the page after the page/row command is completed (thus the close page mode is enabled).)
Regarding claim 4, Takamura teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Takamura further teaches wherein the processing device determines whether the command is executable in response to a precharge command being added to the command scheduler. (Takamura [0010] discloses at step 127 the system schedules CMD 127 in response to the completion of the Pre 125 command and the ACT 126 command, thus in response to determining the command is executable.)
Response to Remarks
Examiner thanks applicant for their claim amendments and remarks of 6/2/2026. They have been fully considered.
Applicants claim amendments have resolved the written description rejection for claims 1-4, and 13-15. They have further resolved some of the indefinite issues for claims 6, and 8-12. However, as detailed above, they do not resolve all of the indefinite issues associated with claims 6 and 8-12.
Applicants conclusion on page 11 of their remarks that the claims are in condition for allowance is not persuasive in light of the pending rejections and/or objections to claims 1-4, 6, and 8-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE M. GIROUARD whose telephone number is (469)295-9131. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 - 7:30.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/JANICE M. GIROUARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights