DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is a response to the Remarks filed December 5, 2026. After a review of the claimed limitations in the claims, the indicated allowability of claims 1-17 is withdrawn and the following rejections are deemed appropriated. This Office action is made none-final.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 USC 102 (a) (1) is hereby remained. The rejection is reiterated bellow for applicant’s convenience.
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al., US 2019/0102088.
As per claim 18:
Fang teaches a method [see para. 0078] comprising: writing first data in a first pass [i.e., initial writing. This is because the data must be written prior to be read. Official Notice is hereby taken]; reading the first data using second data [i.e., the second read operation for reading the data using the correspondent memory address(es). Official Notice is hereby taken]; and after reading the first data, writing the first data in a second pass [i.e., the rewrite operation of the read out data after the error correction is passed].
As per claim 19:
Fang also teach the further claimed limitation of "wherein the send data is composite
data" [this is because the address is composed of row and column addresses as well-
known. Official Notice is hereby taken].
As per claim 20:
Fang also teaches the further claimed limitation of "wherein the data is written to a
storage media in the first and second passes [i.e., the original write and the rewrite
operations]
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,275,515. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims [cited as line numbers in the parentheses] teach the instant claims as follows:
As per claim 1:
The patent claim 1 teaches a system comprising: at least one storage media [line 2]; and at least one processing device configured to: write first data to the storage media [lines 6-10; data is written into each of the plane of the storage media] ; generate second data using the first data [lines 11-12; composite data is generated using data from each plane]; and
use the second data to read the first data [lines 19-20, read data for each plane using the second data derived from the composite data].
The patent claim 1 teaches each and every claimed limitations of the instant claim 1. The instant claim 1, therefore, is anticipated by the patent claim 1.
For claims 2-20:
The further claimed limitations in claims 2-20 can also be found in the patent claims 2-20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,886,718. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims [cited as line numbers in the parentheses] teach the instant claims as follows:
As per claim 1:
The patent claim 1 teaches a system comprising: at least one storage media [line 2]; and at least one processing device configured to: write first data to the storage media [lines 3-5; data is written into the storage media] ; generate second data using the first data [line 6; composite data is generated using the data]; and
use the second data to read the first data [line 7, read the data using the composite data].
The patent claim 1 teaches each and every claimed limitations of the instant claim 1. The instant claim 1, therefore, is anticipated by the patent claim 1.
For claims 2-20:
The further claimed limitations in claims 2-20 can also be found in the patent claims 2-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1:
The claim recites “generate” second data using first data” step , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processing device configured to..” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being calculated mathematically. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because; in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “storage media”, “processing device”, “write” step and “read” step. The “storage media” and “processing device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “write” step and “read” step amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because; as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory device” and “processing device” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “read” step is “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Lastly, the “writing” step is “storing and retrieving information in memory” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10:
The claim recites “generate” step , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “controller configured to..” nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being calculated mathematically. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical calculation but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because; in particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “storage media”, “controller”, and “read” step. The “storage media” and “controller” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the “read” step amount to no more than mere data gathering and output which is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because; as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “memory device” and “controller” are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, the “read” step is “receiving or transmitting data over a network” which the courts have found to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 18:
The claim recites “reading” step and “writing” steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
For claims 2-9, 11-17 and 19-20:
The further claimed limitations appear to only further define certain characteristics of the generic computer components, which limits the claims to a certain field of use and technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, without a good reason otherwise, the dependent claims are also be rejected under 101.
Response to Arguments
With regard to claims 18-20, applicant basically described the disclosed invention and argued that, in claim 18, the prior art fail to disclose or teaches a memory subsystem configured to write data to memory using descrambled data [see the remarks, page 2]. However, the argument is not supported by the claim. There is no descrambled composite data recited in the claim. The claimed “second data” clearly is not descrambled composite data,
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEP T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM - 4:00PM.
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, Arpan P. Savla can be reached at 571-272-1077. 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.
/HIEP T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137