DETAILED ACATION
This office action is in response to an amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection filed 12/18/2025.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 13-15 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, 17-20 have been 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The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 6, and 8-16 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites ‘making a first determination, of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks is active… making a second determination is made of whether at least one particular memory bank is active.. make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active’. Applicant notes on pages 11-12 of their remarks that these three determinations all refer to element 427 of Fig. 4 that makes the determination “IS B ACTIVE?”. Examiner notes however, Figure 4 does not describe element 427, the determination step, being repeated for 3 times for a given bank B. Instead, this determination occurs a single time for each bank. And in between this one determination for each bank the system processes the loop for the next bank. Thus it is possible that step 423 follows the ‘start of scheduling cycle” three times and subsequent steps (425, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434,436, 437, 438, 439 etc.) are repeated multiple times and therefore the processing of each bank (including the one particular bank) is done three times. However, claim 1 further claims ‘make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein; the second determination is made immediately after the activate command is added to the command scheduler with no scheduling actions occurring between the activate command being added to the command scheduler and the second determination being made’. However, following the first determination and the step of adding the activate command scheduler, the system performs the entire series of steps from (425, 427, 428, … to 439, etc.) for a subsequent bank (not the ”one particular bank”). Thus the second determination is not ‘made immediately after the activate command is added to the command scheduler’. Instead it is performed after the remaining banks are processed according to “FOR EACH BANK B” 425 cycle that includes steps 427, 428, to 439 etc.). Examiner requests applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how the specification supports the claim language.
Additionally Claims 1 and 4 recite the limitation "a determination is made whether there is a row command corresponding to the row of the at least one particular memory bank “… “a determination is made whether a close page mode is enabled or an open row timer has expired on the row". Applicant further claims a first, second, and third determination. The subsequent “a determination” appears to be additional limitations that do not distinguish or uniquely themselves separate from the first, second, third)determinations. Claim 4 further claims “the determination” without providing clear antecedent basis for which determination this limitation applies to.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation “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”. Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation and requests applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how it supports the claim language.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from base claim 3 that is rejected to and the dependent claims 2-4 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 6, the claim recites ‘make a first determination, of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks in the portion of the memory device is active… a second determination is made of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active.. make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active’. Applicant notes on pages 12-13 of their remarks that these three determinations all refer to element 427 of Fig. 4 that makes the determination “IS B ACTIVE?”. Thus it is possible that step 423 that is the ‘start of scheduling cycle” and subsequent steps (425 427 428, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434,436, 437, 438, 439 etc.) are repeated multiple times and therefore the processing of each bank is done three times. Claim 6 further claims ‘make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein; the second determination is made immediately after the activate command is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active’. However, following the first determination and the step of adding the activate command scheduler, the system performs the entire loop from (425, 427, 428… to 439, etc.) for a subsequent bank (not the ”one particular bank”). Thus the second determination is not ‘made immediately after the activate command is added to the command scheduler’. Instead it is performed after the remaining banks are processed according to “FOR EACH BANK B” 425 to 439, etc.. Examiner requests applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how the specification supports the claim language.
Additionally, claim 6 recites the limitation “examining each memory bank in the portion of the memory device to make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active”. Examiner notes that the Fig. 4 shows that for each memory bank B a determination may be made relating to Bank B alone. The specification does not support ‘examining each memory bank in the portion of the memory device to make a second determination’. The second determination may be related to Bank B at a second time, but it relates only to Bank Bs active state. Examiner is unable to find support for this limitation and requests 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 base claim 6 that is rejected to and the dependent claims 8-12 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 13, the claim recites ‘make a first determination, of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks is active… make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active.. make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active’. Applicant notes on pages 13-14 of their remarks that these three determinations all refer to element 627 of Fig. 6 that makes the determination “IS B ACTIVE?”. Thus it is possible that step 623 that is the ‘start of scheduling cycle” and subsequent steps (625 to 639 etc.) are repeated multiple times and therefore the processing of each bank is done three times. Claim 13 further claims ‘make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein; the second determination is made immediately after the first activate command or the second activate command is added to the command scheduler with no scheduling actions occurring between either the first activate command or the second activate command being added to the command scheduler’. However, following the first determination and the step of adding the activate command scheduler, the system performs the entire loop from (625, to 639, etc.) for a subsequent bank (not the ”one particular bank”). Thus the second determination is not ‘made immediately after the first activate command or the second activate command is added to the command scheduler’. Instead it is performed after the remaining banks are processed according to “FOR EACH BANK B” 625 to 639, etc.. Examiner requests applicant explicitly cite where the support is within the specification for the newly amended limitations and explain how the specification supports the claim language.
Additionally Claim 13 recites the limitation "a determination” six times, and each “a determination” appears to be a separate determination that is not identified by a unique term such as “fourth determination”, “fifth determination” etc. Claim 13 claims a first determination, a second determination., a third determination. Claim 13 additionally claims “wherein: a determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding read command is made in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is not active” which may relate to the first determination, the second determination. It does not identify what “at least one particular memory bank is not active” determination step it is referring to. Claim 13 additionally claims “a 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” ” which may relate to the first determination or the second determination.
Thus claim 13 is indefinite as the phrase “determining that the at least one particular memory bank is active” is not definite. Examiner requests applicant introduce each determination step with a unique identifier that provides the antecedent basis for any subsequent “determining” step that refers back to a prior determination step.
Claims 14-16 are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. These claims depend from base claim 13 that is rejected to and the dependent claims 14-16 fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1 above.
Reasons for Not Applying Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for not applying art:
Regarding independent claims 1, and 6, the prior art does not teach or suggest ‘make a first determination, of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks in the portion of the memory device is active, 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 or a 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; make a second determination is made of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active.. make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active’ along with ‘make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein; the second determination is made immediately after the activate command is added to the command scheduler in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active’.
An updated search failed to identify a teaching or suggestions of the claimed limitations within the context of the claims.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 8-12 inherit the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6.
Regarding independent claim 13, the prior art does not teach or suggest “make a first determination, of whether at least one particular memory bank of the plurality of memory banks is active, wherein: a determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding read command is made in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is not active, wherein: a first activate command is added to a command scheduler in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank does not have the corresponding read command; or a second activate command is added to the command scheduler in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank has the corresponding read command; or a determination of whether a row of the at least one particular memory bank has a corresponding row command is made in response to determining the at least one particular memory bank is active; in response to the first determination determining that the at least one memory bank is not active, making a second determination of whether the at least one memory bank has a corresponding read command, wherein: a first activate command is added to a command scheduler in response to determining that the at least one memory bank does not have the corresponding read command; and a second activate command is added to the command scheduler in response to determining that the at least one particular memory bank has the corresponding read command; make a second determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active, wherein; the second determination is made immediately after the first activate command or the second activate command is added to the command scheduler with no scheduling actions occurring between either the first activate command or the second activate command being added to the command scheduler.. make a third determination of whether the at least one particular memory bank is active”.
An updated search failed to identify a teaching or suggestions of the claimed limitations within the context of the claims.
Dependent claims 14-17 inherit the limitations of independent claims 1 and 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2138