/ 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. 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 directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they recite a signal per se: “a plurality of signals arranged in a sequence across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals shift positions in the sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack.” (claim 1; claims 2-4, 6-8 11-13, and 15-20 also recite signals). Signals themselves are not patent eligible subject matter, and are not properly element of device claims. See MPEP 2106.03: “ Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. ” (Emphasis added.) See also In re Nuijten , 500 F3d 1346 , 1355-1356: “ A transitory signal made of electrical or electromagnetic variances is not made of ‘ parts ’ or ‘ devices ’ in any mechanical sense. While such a signal is physical and real, it does not possess concrete structure in the sense implied by these definitions. No part of the signal — the crests or troughs of the electromagnetic wave, or perhaps the particles that make it up (modern physics teaches that both features are present simultaneously) is a mechanical ‘ device ’ or ‘ part. ’ A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a ‘ machine ’ as that term is used in § 101. ” Thus, a device claim that includes a signal as an element is not a proper device claim. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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 . Claim 1 recites “a plurality of signals arranged in a sequence across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals shift positions in the sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack.” The most straightforward interpretation of this is that it refers to the signal passing through the die. Claims 2-4, 6-8 11-13, and 15-20 also recite signals, and have the same problem. Another interpretation would be that these refer to signal paths. As set forth in In re Miyazaki , “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2008). The examiner will here interpret this as referring to signal paths. Claim 10 recites that “the sequence is arranged at a specific location relative to the first die; and the sequence is arranged at the specific location relative to the second die.” It is not clear what it means for a sequence to be arranged at a specific location. For present purposes the examiner will assume that this means that that this refers to the location of the signals (the pads). Claims 13 and 14 recite methods of using the device: “an input signal that carries an input from the base die to each die included in the die stack; and wherein the plurality of signals carries parallel data from each die included in the die stack to the base die.”; “the input comprises test stimulus data, and the parallel data comprises a response to the input generated by each die included in the die stack.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependencies. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 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. Claim s 1-4, 6-8, 10, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" by Vogt, US 2013 / 0272049 A1. Claim 1: Vogt discloses a die stack (400) ; and a plurality of signals (280) arranged in a sequence across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals shift positions in the sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack (FIG. 4) . Claim 2: the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal that is shifted in one direction relative to the sequence between the first die and the second die; and second and third signals that are shifted in another direction opposite the one direction between the first die and the second die. Claim 3: the sequence comprises a first position, a second position, and a third position aligned across the die stack; and the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal coupled to the first position on the first die; a second signal coupled to the second position on the first die; and a third signal coupled to the third position on the first die (FIG. 4 ). Claim 4: the first signal is shifted to a final position in the sequence on the second die; the second signal is shifted to the first position on the second die; and the third signal is shifted to the second position on the second die (FIG. 4) . Claim 6: the plurality of signals comprises a fourth signal that is coupled to a fourth position in the sequence on the first die and is shifted to the third position on the second die (FIG. 4) . Claim 7: the first signal is shifted to the third position on a third die (440)1 included in the die stack; the second signal is shifted to the final position on the third die; the third signal is shifted to the first position on the third die; and the fourth signal is shifted to the second position on the third die. Claim 8: the first signal is shifted to the second position on a fourth die (460) included in the die stack; the second signal is shifted to the third position on the fourth die; the third signal is shifted to the final position on the fourth die; and the fourth signal is shifted to the first position on the fourth die (FIG. 4) . Claim 10 recites that “the sequence is arranged at a specific location relative to the first die; and the sequence is arranged at the specific location relative to the second die.” It is not clear what it means for a sequence to be arranged at a specific location. For present purposes the examiner will assume that this means that that this refers to the location of the signals (the pads). The pads are at the same location on each die. Claim 1 2 : Vogt discloses a base die (410) that is coupled to the die stack, wherein a number of dies (4) included in the die stack corresponds to a number of signals (4) included in the plurality of signals. Claim 15: Vogt discloses a base die (410) ; a die stack (400) coupled to the base die; and a plurality of signals (280) arranged in a sequence that spans from the base die across the die stack, wherein the plurality of signals shift positions in the sequence between each die included in the die stack (FIG. 4) . Claim 16: the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal that is shifted in one direction relative to the sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack; and second and third signals that are shifted in another direction opposite the one direction between the first die and the second die. Claim 17: the sequence comprises a first position, a second position, and a third position aligned across the die stack; and the plurality of signals comprises: a first signal coupled to the first position on the first die; a second signal coupled to the second position on the first die; and a third signal coupled to the third position on the first die. Claim 18: the first signal is shifted to a final position in the sequence on the second die; the second signal is shifted to the first position on the second die; and the third signal is shifted to the second position on the second die. See the annotated figure above. Claim 19: the plurality of signals comprises a fourth signal that is coupled to a fourth position in the sequence on the first die and is shifted to the third position on the second die (FIG. 4) . Claim 20: Vogt discloses coupling a base die (410) to a die stack (400) ; arranging a plurality of signals (280) in a sequence across the die stack; and shifting positions of the plurality of signals in the sequence between a first die and a second die included in the die stack (FIG. 4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 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 effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt. Claim 5 recites that “the final position in the sequence is the third position.” Vogt discloses 4 positions, but it would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine how many connections are needed and to put in that many positions of pads in each chip. Changing the number of elements is not typically a source of patentability absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04. Claim 9 recites that “ the first die, the second die, the third die, and the fourth die are duplicates of one another. ” Vogt does not precisely say this, but suggests it; all the dies are illustrated identicall y and they are referred to identically as “ memory die layers 430, 440, 450, and 460. ” No distinction is made, and thus Vogt suggests using the same dies. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt in view of Wendt, US 2006 / 0202712 A1 . Claim 11 recites that “the plurality of signals comprises multiple instances use of a clock signal distributed across the die stack.” Vogt does not mention clock signals, but this was a very common kind of signal, and it would have been obvious to have used such a signal. Also, see Wendt, FIG. 3, which shows shifting clock signals CLK0-CLK3 between dies 300-330. It would have been obvious to have had clock signals in Vogt as common and known in the art. Claim s 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vogt in view of Gillingham, US 2011 / 0050320 A1 . Claim 13: Vogt does not disclose the details of the data transmission, but Gillingham [0046] - [ 0047] discloses an input signal that carries an input from the base die to each die included in the die stack “T he controller sends a sequence of commands beginning with a Bank Activate (BA) Command to the DRAM with Device ID=00 (the first device in the stack in this example) along with address bits specifying Bank Address 0 and Row Address 0 (abbreviated as 0,0 in the diagram). After a period of time allowing the bank activation process to complete, the controller sends a Write Command (WR) to device 0 along with address bits specifying Bank Address 0 and Column Address 0 (abbreviated as 0,0 in the diagram) followed by a 2 byte burst of data to be written "55" and "AA". The controller then continues to issue similar pairs of BA and WR commands to each possible Device ID up to the maximum number supported by the controller or the system. ” and wherein the plurality of signals carries parallel data from each die included in the die stack to the base die. “ After completing the write operations the controller then reads each possible device in the stack to determine which ones are actually present. ” Gillingham does not disclose that the signals are parallel, but as Vogt has an architecture made for parallel signal transmission, it would have been obvious to have had parallel transmission. It would have been obvious to have used such an process in order to Claim 14: the input of Gillingham comprises test stimulus data (data to initiate the device) , and the parallel data comprises a response to the input generated by each die included in the die stack (a response to indicate the die is present) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1596 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 10:30-6:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacob Choi can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 469.295.9060 . 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. /PETER BRADFORD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897