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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 1-5, 11, 12, 5, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,440. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,440 are clearly anticipated or similar in scope to the rejected claims 1-5, 11, 12, 5, 16, 19 and 20 of the U. S. Pat. App (No. 18/742,550) with only obvious wording variations. For example below:
Instant application
Claim Number
U.S. Patent No. 11,974,440
Claim Number
1
1, 16, 18
2
2 and spec. col. 14 lines 28-31
3
1
4
1
5
1
11
1
12
3, 4
15
1, 3, 4, 16
16
1
19
1, 15, 18
20
1, spec. col. 5 lines 10-24, 39-62
As shown in table above, the limitations in claims 1-5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 of pending Application can be found the limitations in claims 1-4, 16 and 18 as indicated above of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,440. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that they are not patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 and 20 of pending Application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,974,440 for the reasons as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the applicant overcomes the obvious double patenting rejection above.
Claims 6-10, 13, 14, 17 and 18 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, because the prior art of record fails to teach the limitation of claim 6 “wherein the one or more upper metal patterns and the one or more power patterns are alternately disposed along the first horizontal direction.“; the limitation of claim 7 “wherein the one or more upper metal patterns include a first upper metal pattern, wherein the one or more power patterns include a first power pattern, and wherein the first power pattern and the first upper metal pattern are sequentially disposed along the first horizontal direction.“; the limitation of claim 10 “further comprising: a shielding pattern extending in the first horizontal direction and disposed over a portion of the plurality of page buffer units.“; the limitation of claim 13 “wherein the sensing node forms a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor with one or more metal patterns adjacent thereto.“; the limitation of claim 14 “wherein a capacitance of the sensing node is configured to have a first value based on the lower metal pattern, and wherein the capacitance of the sensing node is configured to, based on the one or more upper metal patterns, increase to a value greater than the first value.“; the limitation of claim 17 “wherein the plurality of page buffer units further include: a third page buffer unit disposed between the first page buffer unit and the second page buffer unit along the second horizontal direction, wherein a third sensing node of the third page buffer unit includes: a third lower metal pattern extending in the first horizontal direction; and one or more third upper metal patterns spaced from the third lower metal pattern in the vertical direction and extending in the second horizontal direction , and wherein the one or more third upper metal patterns extend in the second horizontal direction above the third page buffer unit.” and the limitation of claim 18 “further comprising: a shielding pattern extending in the first horizontal direction and disposed over the second page buffer unit.“. Therefore, the prior art teachings are neither anticipate nor render obvious the allowable subject matter in combination with the other claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8163. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/TUAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights