DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 should be amended to “each of the plurality of ranks including one or more banks of memory including i) a memory cell array of memory cells to store data and ii) a computational logic circuit to perform data processing”. This is so that it is clear what (rank, bank or memory cell array) corresponds to computational logic circuit.
Claim 1 should be amended to “at least one of (N-P) ranks performs an operation in response to a second command without utilizing the computational logic circuit in the at least one of (N-P) ranks”. This is so that it is clear which rank (out of plural ranks) does computational logic belongs to. In addition, this is so that computational logic, not being used, belongs to (N-P) ranks (not belonging to P ranks). There is also no support for (N-P) ranks performing operations without using computational logic that belongs to another rank.
Claim 2 should be amended to “wherein the memory controller is configured to, when there is at least one second command in the command queue second command during at least a part of the first period, wherein the command queue corresponds to at least one of the N ranks”. This is so that it is clear what (command in command queue or rank) corresponds to first period. In addition, “to” is redundant because there is “configured to”. Furthermore, “for” is intended use (and thus does not further limit the claim) and should be replaced with “corresponds to”.
Claim 3 should be amended to “wherein the memory controller is configured to, when there is no second command in the command queue for each of the N ranks, [[to]] control all of the N ranks to operate in response to the first command during a second period after the first period”. This “to” is redundant in view of “configured to”. In addition, this is so that it is clear which command queue (out of plural commands queues for N ranks) is being referred to.
Claim 6 should be amended to “wherein at least one of the P ranks, that [[that]] operate in response to the first command during the first period,
Claim 7 should be amended to “wherein the memory controller assigns, in each cycle based on a length of the first period, i) a rank among the N ranks to perform an operation in response to the first command and ii) a rank among the N ranks to perform an operation in response to the second command”. This is so that it is clear what (assigning or a rank) corresponds a rank among N ranks performing operation in response to second command.
Claim 9 should be amended to “wherein the memory controller performs a refresh operation on at least one of the (N-P) ranks that operate in response to the second command during the first period”. This is so that there is operational antecedence for ranks that was previously operated on by second command. In addition, there should be a consistency to claim 1 where it is (N-P) ranks that are operated on by second command.
Claim 10 should be amended to “wherein, when the operations of the P ranks that operate in response to the first command during the first period are completed, the memory controller performs a refresh operation on all of the P ranks on which operations in response to the first command are performed”. This is so that there is operational antecedence for ranks that was previously operated on by first command. In addition, this is so that it is clear what (P ranks or N-P ranks) are being referred to by “the ranks”.
Claim 16 should be amended to “at least one command queue configured to store, for each of a plurality of ranks of memory, a first command and a second command
Claim 16 should be amended to “when there is at least one of the second commands, while an operation, in [[in]] response to the first command, is [[is]] being performed by one part of the plurality of ranks, schedule an operation to be performed by another part of the plurality of ranks in response to the second command”. This is so that scheduling of second command is when there is at least one of second commands in a queue (and not when there is at least one of second commands in CPU). There is also no support for scheduling of said second command when there is one or more of second commands in CPU. In addition, this is so that it is clear what (operation or first command) is being performed by one part of plurality of ranks.
Claim 20 should be amended to “wherein at least one of ranks, that [[that]] perform an operation in response to the first command, among [[among]] the plurality of ranks shares a data channel with at least one of ranks that perform an operation in response to the second command”. This is so that it is clear what (at least one rank or performing of operation) corresponds to among the plurality of ranks.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also objected on the same grounds as said above identified claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim 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) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “scheduler” (generic placeholder) performing functions (limitations) in claims 16 – 19.
“a scheduler configured to: schedule a command to be performed by each of the plurality of ranks during a preset operation period, based on a number of first commands and a number of second commands” in claim 16
“based on the number of first commands and the number of second commands stored in the at least one command queue during a first period, the scheduler assigns a rank that operates in response to the first command and a rank that operates in response to the second command during a second period after the first period” in claim 17
“the scheduler assigns a first group of the plurality of ranks to operate in response to the first command during a first period, and assigns at least one rank included in the first group to operate in response to the second command during a second period after the first period” in claim 18
“the scheduler assigns a second group of the plurality of ranks to operate in response to the second command during the first period, wherein ranks included in the second group do not share a data channel with each other” in claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth 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 16 – 20 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.
As noted supra, claims 16 – 19 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. In this instance, “scheduler” refers to a generic box with no disclosure of structure in the instant specification. This renders the claims unclear as to what corresponding structure is being referred to by “scheduler”. As such, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting “scheduler” to refer to processor implementing functions in the claims.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also rejected on the same grounds as said above identified claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 – 20 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 claims 16 – 19, as described in 112(b) supra with respect to corresponding structure in the specification, the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure as to what structure corresponds to “scheduler”. Therefore, the claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) written description as failing to provide sufficient disclosure such that one of ordinary skill can reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also rejected on the same grounds as said above identified claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 recites, at least, operating P ranks in response to first command and operating N-P ranks in response to second command without utilizing computation logic circuit in said N-P ranks. This subject matter is reflected in the following limitations of claim 1.
a memory device including a plurality of ranks of memory, each of the plurality of ranks including one or more banks of memory including a memory cell array of memory cells to store data and a computational logic circuit to perform data processing
wherein, during at least a part of a first period in which, among N ranks (N is an integer satisfying N 2) sharing a data channel, P ranks (P is an integer satisfying N>P 1) operate in response to a first command, at least one of (N-P) ranks performs an operation in response to a second command without utilizing the computational logic circuit (Note that this limitation is objected to and should read “without utilizing computational logic circuit in the at least one of (N-P) ranks”)
Madan (US 20240103745) teaches one or more processing-in-memory requests (first command) performed on one or more groups of memory banks (P ranks), and one or more memory requests (second command) performed on one or more other groups of memory banks (N-P ranks) (see Madan Fig. 5, ¶[82-83]). In exemplary embodiment, there are two groups (N ranks) of memory banks, multicast group-0 and multicast group-1 where said one or more processing-in-memory requests (first command) are performed on said multicast group-1 (P ranks (P is an integer satisfying N>P≥1) and said one or more memory requests (second command) are performed on said multicast group-0 (N-P ranks) (see Fig. 1, ¶[39-40]). However, Madan does not appear to explicitly teach said one or more memory requests are performed on said multicast group-0 without using computational logic circuit in said multicast group-0. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over Madan.
Claim 16 recites, at least, in response to second command, scheduling an operation to be performed by another part of ranks while an operation is performed, in response to first command, by one part of said ranks. This subject matter is reflected in the following limitations of claim 16.
when there is at least one second commands, while an operation in response to the first command is being performed by one part of the plurality of ranks, schedule an operation to be performed by another part of the plurality of ranks in response to the second command
Madan teaches issuing one or more memory requests (second command) to other groups of memory banks (another part of the plurality of ranks) while one or more processing-in-memory requests (first command) are performed on one or more groups of memory banks (one part of the plurality of ranks) (see Madan Fig. 5 ¶[82-83]). While Madan teaches issuing said one or more memory requests while said one or more processing-in-memory requests are being performed, Madan does not appear to explicitly teach said one or more memory requests are scheduled while said one or more processing-in-memory requests are being performed. Therefore, claim 16 is allowable over Madan.
Madan also teaches said processing-in-memory requests and memory requests are stored in request queue (command queue) (see Madan Fig. 2, ¶[43]) where scheduling module (scheduler) selects (schedule) said one or more memory requests (a command, second command) to issue (see Madan ¶[47]) based on i) whether there are high priority of said memory requests (number of second commands) in said request queue (see Madan ¶[49]), and ii) number of said processing-in-memory requests (number of first commands) to be executed (see Madan ¶[51]). While Madan teaches said one or more memory requests (second command) are selected (scheduled), Madan does not appear to explicitly teach said one or more memory requests are selected while processing-in-memory request is being performed in one part of plurality of ranks. Therefore, claim 16 is allowable over Madan.
Claims, dependent upon above identified claims, are also allowable over prior art for the same reasons as said above identified claims.
Additional Remarks
In the interest of compact prosecution, in order to overcome 112(a)/(b), claims 16 – 19 should be amended to replace “scheduler” with “logic circuit” (see spec ¶[29]).
In the interest of compact prosecution, Suh (US 20260016957) teaches i) same first group of memory banks, being used to perform memory access operations (second command) in first cycle (first period), is also used to perform PIM operations (first command) in second cycle (second period), and ii) same second group of memory banks, being used to perform PIM operations (first command) in said first cycle (first period), is also used to perform memory access operations (second command) in said second cycle (second period) (see Suh Fig. 4 and corresponding paragraphs). This is relevant to claims 4 – 6 and 17 – 18. Furthermore, Suh also teaches channel sharing of said first and second groups of memory banks (see Suh Figs. 2 – 3 and corresponding paragraphs). This is relevant to claims 19 – 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIE YEW whose telephone number is (571)270-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays.
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, Reginald Bragdon can be reached at (571) 272-4204. 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.
/CHIE YEW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Prosecution Insights