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 § 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-11, 13-18 and 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.
Claims 2, 13 and 20 recite “being in one of a plurality of groups”. Parent claims previously establish “computing a group” and it is unclear if these terms are tied together and therefore the antecedent basis is unclear. For examination purposes (see below), it is interpreted as referring to the same group which is computed in the parent claim(s).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,335,407. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘407 patent clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,186. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘186 patent clearly anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conley in view of Yoo (US 8,331,144).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 19, Conley discloses a device, comprising: memory cells (see Figure 3); and a logic circuit coupled with the memory cells (see Figure 5) and configured to: receive a plurality of pages of data bits (see Figure 20); and program a page of the memory cells to have threshold voltages representative of the plurality of pages of data bits, via: programming, in a first pass, a threshold voltage of each respective memory cell in the page of the memory cells (see paragraph 0122) and increasing a voltage applied to the page of the memory cells to a sequence of read voltages in an increasing order (see Figure 11).
Conley fails to teach the step of computing a group identification for the respective memory cell. However, one of ordinary skill was aware at the time of many reasons for determining a group identification of memory cells. For example, Yoo teaches computing a group identification for cells as aggressor cells or victim cells (see Figure 3 for example). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to compute a group identification for the respective memory cells being programmed in order to reduce disturbance in a program operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks seem largely drawn to superfluous background information on the invention (pages 1-3). With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicant’s remarks are merely a high level explanation of the teachings of the references (page 4). There is no argument regarding any specific element of the rejection. Furthermore, there is no citations of any section of the rejection(s), or any of the references for which there is a presumed error in the Office Action. Applicant has also failed to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and is reminded that double patenting rejections are not a matter of form and the holding of those rejections in abeyance is dependent upon the advancement of prosecution. Since Applicant has not made any amendment to the claims, or specific traversal of the rejections, the Actions is Final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11, 13-18 and 20 are provisionally objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and an overcoming of the double patenting rejection by Terminal Disclaimer and the overcoming of the antecedent issues in the manner interpreted by the Examiner above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the prior art teaches various embodiments of grouping and program passes, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest in combination each of the threshold levels being in one of a plurality of groups, each of the plurality of groups containing a subset of the threshold levels and having a set of associated read voltages that separate threshold levels in the subset.
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 DOUGLAS KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached at 571-272-1869. 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.
/DOUGLAS KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights