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 .
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
a. Independent: 1
b. Pending: 1-15
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is submitted on 5/16/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Preliminary Amendment to include paragraph [0000] for “CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS” is reviewed and accepted by examiner.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Electronic device with memory to write with and without verification.
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.
STEP 1: Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. Alice Corp. V. CLS Bank Int', 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excepted category,
we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in
Alice (see id. at 217-18), and Mayo Collaborative Services V. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012). In accordance with that
framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 219.
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (id. at 219-20; Bilski V. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond V. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); "tanning, dying, making water-proof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning V.
Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
A409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane V. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). If a
claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to
'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstractidea]." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
77).
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of Section 101. The Manual of Patent Examining procedure
("MPEP") now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates
at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Under MPEP § 2106, we
first look to whether a claim recites (1) any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) ("Step 2A, Prong One"); and (2) additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
("Step 2A, Prong Two"). MPEP § 2106.04(a), (d). Only if a claim (1) recites
a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim (3) adds a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine,
conventional' in the field, or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong One ... The Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we first look to whether the claim recites
a judicial exception to the statutory categories of patent-eligible subject
matter, including one of the following groupings of abstract ideas:
(1)mathematical concepts, e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) mental processes, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind,
including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions; and
(3) certain methods of organizing human activity. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
The Supreme Court has established that a mathematical concept
without more does not constitute patent-eligible subject matter. See Flook,
437 U.S. at 587-96 ("Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention Respondent's
application simply provides a new and presumably better method for
calculating alarm limit values."); Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. V. Radio Corp. of
Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939) ("[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical
expression of it, is not patentable invention ").
Claims 1-10 and 14-15 are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically,
representative device claim 1 recites:
An electronic device comprising:
a magnetoresistive effect memory configured to hold first data to be written for long-term holding and second data to be written for short-term holding;
a memory control unit configured to write the first data and the second data into the magnetoresistive effect memory and to verify the first data; and
a processing unit configured to perform processing based on the first data and the second data.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in
bold above; the remaining limitations are "additional elements". Each of
these limitations sets forth an abstract idea in the form of a mental processes. "hold and processing" merely describes observations and evaluations done in human mind. Holding information for short or long time does not change the character of the information. Id. Under the Guidance, "mental processes" are defined as concepts performed in the human mind, with examples including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Limitations in claim 1 that recite holding, processing, etc., fall into the mental process category, as they require observations and evaluations that can be done in the human mind or with no more than a generic computer. "But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas." Elec.Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355.
Claim 1 thus recites mental processes, which are abstract ideas, which are judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong Two --- Integration into a Practical Application
Having determined that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of
mental processes, we next look to determine whether the claim recites "additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-54. Integration into a practical application requires considering whether additional elements, individually or in combination, "apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception." Id. at 53. The additional elements are the limitations in addition to the limitations that contain a judicial exception. Id. at 54-55; October 2019 Update 12. The October2019 Update further explains that "[a]n important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology." October 2019 Update 12. Limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see id. §2106.05(h)). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two").
In addition to abstract ideas, claim 1 recites the following elements:
An electronic device comprising:
a magnetoresistive effect memory... a memory control unit configured to write the first data and the second data into the magnetoresistive effect memory and to verify the first data; and a processing unit. These elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, but rather contribute to mere data processing, which "cannot make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory." CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computers (processors) or other technology, but on using conventional technology to process different sets --- which amounts to a judicial exception. Mere physicality or tangibility of the additional elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2B. MPEP $2106.05(D(A)).
Additional elements in claim 1 do not integrate the abstract ideas
into a practical application.
Step 2B --- Inventive Concept
The final step in our § 101 analysis, having determined that claim 1
is directed to an abstract idea, is evaluating whether additional elements
in claim 1, individually and in combination, amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The additional elements like “electronic device”, "magnetoresistive effect memory", “memory control unit” and "processing unit", when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements, alone or together, fail to reflect any improvement in accuracy of detecting data. These elements together perform the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions claimed at a high level of generality of comparing and outputting data. See claim rejection with Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663).
In view of our analysis under the steps of the PTO's Revised
Guidance as updated in October 2019, we conclude that claim 1 is
directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Similar analysis is applicable to dependent claims 2-11 and 14-15 and henceforth are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663).
Regarding independent claim 1, Baraskar discloses an electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a magnetoresistive effect memory ([0096] describes magnetoresistive memory) configured to hold first data to be written for long-term holding and second data to be written for short-term holding (Fig. 11A and [0174] describes sets 2500 and 2600 of memory cells in FIGS. 25 and 26. The command may be issued by the host 140 and received by the controller 122, for example. Step 1101 includes performing a first program pass for the set of memory cells by applying one or more program pulses to the selected word line without performing verify tests. See, e.g., FIGS. 22A and 22B. Step 1102 includes performing a second program pass for the set of memory cells by applying a set of program pulses to the selected word line and performing verify tests. See, e.g., FIG. 10B);
a memory control unit configured to write the first data and the second data into the magnetoresistive effect memory (Fig. 1 and [0084] describes that control circuitry 110 cooperates with the read/write circuits 128 to perform memory operations on the memory structure 126. Here blocks 110 and 128 together forms memory control unit) and to verify the first data ([0110] describes verify operation by the sense circuit); and
a processing unit configured to perform processing based on the first data and the second data (Fig. 2 and [0118], [0120] describes processor 192).
Regarding claim 2, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the write for long-term holding is a write with verification, and the write for short-term holding is a write without verification (Fig. 11A and [0174] describes sets 2500 and 2600 of memory cells in FIGS. 25 and 26. The command may be issued by the host 140 and received by the controller 122, for example. Step 1101 includes performing a first program pass for the set of memory cells by applying one or more program pulses to the selected word line without performing verify tests. See, e.g., FIGS. 22A and 22B. Step 1102 includes performing a second program pass for the set of memory cells by applying a set of program pulses to the selected word line and performing verify tests. See, e.g., FIG. 10B).
Regarding claim 7, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the first data is a program, the second data is operation data, and the processing unit processes the second data with the first data ([0092] describes boot code is software that initializes the controller during a booting or startup process and enables the controller to access the memory structure. The code can be used by the controller to control one or more memory structures).
Regarding claim 8, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the magnetoresistive effect memory includes a first memory region being a region for holding the first data, and a second memory region being a region for holding the second data (Figs. 3-6 show various memory regions).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663) in view of Kinrot et al. (US 20120236174).
Regarding claim 3, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and through Kinrot further the second data is an image signal, the first data is a set value in processing of the image signal, and the processing unit performs processing of the second data based on the first data (Claim 1 recites two different types of data, first being image and the second a representing a flicker statistic, the image processing hardware element further configured to correct for image flicker according to the flicker statistic and provide output data based on the first data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Kinrot to modified Baraskar in order to improve image quality as taught by Kinrot ([0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Baraskar and Kinrot together disclose all the elements of claim 3 as above and through Kinrot further the magnetoresistive effect memory further holds a program for processing the second data ([0026]-[0027] describes that flicker calculation function 214 and flicker correction function 216 can each be implemented as software).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Kinrot to modified Baraskar in order to improve image quality as taught by Kinrot ([0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663) in view of Kursun et al. (US 20200372403).
Regarding claim 5, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and through Kursun further the first data is a machine learning result in an artificial intelligence processing circuit, the second data is temporary storage data during machine learning, and the processing unit performs the machine learning using the second data to generate the first data (Fig. 3 and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Kursun to modified Baraskar in order to provide an artificial intelligence system for real-time event trend analysis using a population of machine learning models as taught by Kursun ([0011]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663) in view of Chen et al. (US 20210314205).
Regarding claim 6, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and through Chen further the second data is a processing result in baseband processing, the first data is a set value in the baseband processing, and the processing unit performs the baseband processing based on the first data to generate the second data (Figs. 1, 5 and [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Chen to modified Baraskar in order to generate one or more data symbols of a frame to be transmitted to a station device (STA) as taught by Chen (Abstract).
Claims 9-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663) in view of Isard et al. (US 20080082644).
Regarding claim 9, Baraskar discloses all the elements of claim 8 as above and through Isard further the magnetoresistive effect memory further includes a common region being a region for holding either the first data or the second data (Claim 18 recites data store that stores data for said first code are located in a common region of a network associated with a particular switch device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Isard to modified Baraskar in order to provide with one or more locations for each of a set of data files in a distributed data processing system having multiple nodes, identifying nodes of the distributed data processing system that are available for executing the program units and are near the data files, and sending instructions to nodes near the data files to execute the program units as taught by Isard ([0006]).
Regarding claim 10, Baraskar and Isard together disclose all the elements of claim 9 as above and through Isard further the magnetoresistive effect memory further includes a switching-information holding region for holding switching information for switching the common region to either holding the first data or holding the second data (Fig. 1 and corresponding sections of the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Isard to modified Baraskar in order to provide with one or more locations for each of a set of data files in a distributed data processing system having multiple nodes, identifying nodes of the distributed data processing system that are available for executing the program units and are near the data files, and sending instructions to nodes near the data files to execute the program units as taught by Isard ([0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Baraskar and Isard together disclose all the elements of claim 10 as above and through Isard further a switching control unit configured to control a write into the common region based on the switching information; and a selection unit configured to select data read from the common region based on the switching information (Fig. 1 and corresponding sections of the specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Isard to modified Baraskar in order to provide with one or more locations for each of a set of data files in a distributed data processing system having multiple nodes, identifying nodes of the distributed data processing system that are available for executing the program units and are near the data files, and sending instructions to nodes near the data files to execute the program units as taught by Isard ([0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Baraskar and Isard together disclose all the elements of claim 9 as above and through Baraskar further the magnetoresistive effect memory further includes an address-information holding region for holding address information being information of addresses of the first data and the second data held in the common region (Fig. 1 and [0084]-[0085] describes on-chip address decoder).
Regarding claim 15, Baraskar and Isard together disclose all the elements of claim 14 as above and through Baraskar further a second switching control unit configured to switch the common region to either holding the first data or holding the second data based on the address information (Fig. 3 and [0123]-[0125] describes switches 422 and 450 to connect different memory regions).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baraskar et al. (US 20200211663) in view of Isard et al. (US 20080082644) and Smith (US 9432298).
Regarding claim 12, Baraskar and Isard together disclose all the elements of claim 11 as above and through Smith further a first error detection/correction unit (Fig. 14 shows Error Control and Reporting unit) configured to perform error detection/correction processing of the first data, wherein the first memory region further includes a redundant region for holding redundant data about an error correction code generated by the first error detection/correction unit (Fig. 25-13 and (2779) describes . first memory region may comprise cells 0-63 organized in columns C0-C7 and rows R0-R7, as shown. The first memory region may have one or more associated spare (e.g. redundant, etc.) second memory regions. In FIG. 13, for example, the one or more spare second memory regions may be organized, for example, as columns C8, C9 and rows S0, S1. Any number, organization, size of spare second memory regions may be used).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Smith to modified Baraskar in order to provide with memory error correction scheme as taught by Smith.
Regarding claim 13, Baraskar, Isard and Smith together disclose all the elements of claim 12 as above and
Regarding limitation: a second error detection/correction unit configured to perform error detection/correction processing of the second data, wherein the second memory region further includes a redundant region for holding redundant data about an error correction code generated by the second error detection/correction unit; is mere duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) --- Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA BEGUM whose telephone number is (571)431-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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 571272 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.
/SULTANA BEGUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 12/23/2025