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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449. The information disclosed therein was considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species according to Figures 9-11 in the reply filed on 12/18/25 is acknowledged.
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 2, 3, 6-8, 11-12, 15, 17, 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,321,008. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the later clearly dominate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the ‘008 patent recite substantially dominant features of the instant claims with some lacking a structure such as the claimed controller or CRM. However, these additions are common and well-known at the time of filing for the purpose of implementing and distributing the method and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to include such structures.
Claims 2-3, 6, 11-12, 15, 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the later clearly dominate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the ‘008 patent recite substantially dominant features of the instant claims with some lacking a structure such as the claimed controller or CRM. However, these additions are common and well-known at the time of filing for the purpose of implementing and distributing the method and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to include such structures.
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.
Claims 2-5, 8, 9, 11-14, 17, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Snyder (US 6,661,724).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Snyder discloses a method, comprising: sensing, at a host device (see Figure 2, e.g. 210+220+230+240+250), a temperature of the host device (via 230); determining, at the host device, a respective value of one or more parameters (e.g. time 288) for operating a memory device (e.g. 270) based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see Figure 4); and transmitting signaling (clock 250) from the host device to the memory device based at least in part on determining the respective value of the one or more parameters (via transformation).
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more timing parameters (time 288) for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a temperature decrease of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see Figure 5C); and decreasing a value of an access time (program/erase pulse time of 40C decreases with temperature) based at least in part on determining the temperature decrease.
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining temperature increase of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; increasing a value of an access time (program/erase pulse time of 40C increases with temperature), based at least in part on determining the temperature increase.
Regarding claim 8 and 17, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more frequency parameters (see column 6, lines 25+ programmable clock) for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Snyder discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: determining a temperature increase of the host device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; and reducing one or more frequencies for operating the memory device based at least in part on determining the temperature increase (see Figure 5c, 40C line temp increases, pulse width/frequency decreases).
Regarding claim 20, Snyder discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see column 8, lines 28+) storing code comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a host device, cause the host device to perform the method taught above.
Regarding claim 21, Snyder discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein, to determine the respective value of the one or more parameters, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the host device, cause the host device to: determining a respective value of one or more timing parameters, one or more voltage parameters (see rejections above), for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cornwell (US 2007/0174642).
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Cornwell discloses a method (and related device), comprising: sensing, at a host device (e.g. 215+140), a temperature of the host device (see paragraph 0020, 0042 “near” “around” the flash memory); determining, at the host device, a respective value of one or more parameters (operating voltages) for operating a memory device (e.g. 205+210+230) based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device; and transmitting signaling from the host device to the memory device based at least in part on determining the respective value of the one or more parameters (see paragraph 0042, “send adjusted command”).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Cornwell discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters comprises: determining a respective value of one or more voltage parameters for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7 and 16, Cornwell discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more voltage parameters comprise one or more reference voltages, one or more bias voltages (operating voltage), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 20, Cornwell discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see paragraph 0046) storing code comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a host device, cause the host device to perform the method taught above.
Regarding claim 21, Cornwell discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein, to determine the respective value of the one or more parameters, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the host device, cause the host device to: determining a respective value of one or one or more voltage parameters, or one or more frequency parameters, or a combination thereof for operating the memory device based at least in part on sensing the temperature of the host device (see rejections above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are 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.
Regarding claim 10 (and 19), the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including transmitting, to the memory device based at least in part on determining that the change in temperature of the host device satisfies the threshold, a request for an indication of a temperature of the memory device; and receiving, from the memory device based at least in part on transmitting the request, the indication of the temperature of the memory device, wherein determining the respective value of the one or more parameters for operating the memory device is based at least in part on the indication the temperature of the memory device.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 on 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