DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 28, 2025. The replacement sheet of Figure 2 of the drawings is acceptable by the examiner.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “clock tree circuit” recited in claims 7 and 31 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-42 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered copending application 18/764,159. See detail below.
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 1-12, 16-24, and 26-39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 14-22, and 24-37 of copending Application No. 18/764,159 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims 1, 16, and 26 of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the independent claims 1, 14, 24 of the copending Application No. 18/764,159 based on the broader claims of the instant application would have been obvious in view of the narrow-issued claims of the copending Application No. 18/764,159.
The claimed features of the “controllable delay line”, the “clock generator”, the “phase detector”, and the wherein clause recited in claim 1 of the instant application are similar (with slightly different wordings) to claim 1 of the claimed features of the “first controllable delay line”, the “first clock generator”, the “phase detector”, and the wherein clause of the copending Application No. 18/764,159.
The claimed features of the method steps of “receiving”, “adjusting”, “generating”, “receiving”, “detecting”, and “generating” recited in claim 16 of the instant application are similar (with slightly different wordings) to claim 14 of the first 5 and the last method steps of the copending Application No. 18/764,159.
The claimed features of the “first clock transmission circuit”, the “first controllable delay line”, the “first clock generator”, the “first phase detector”, and the wherein clause recited in claim 26 of the instant application are similar (with slightly different wordings) to claim 24 of the claimed features of the “first controllable delay line”, the “first clock generator”, the “first phase detector”, and the wherein clause of the copending Application No. 18/764,159.
The claim features of the dependent claims 2-12, 17-24, and 27-39 of the instant application are either the same or similar (with slightly different wordings) to the claimed features of the dependent claims 2-12, 15-22, and 25-37, respectively, of the copending Application No. 18/764,159.
Although the conflicting claims (1/1, 16/14, and 26/24) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broader claims of the instant application would have been obvious in view of the narrow-issued claims of the U.S. Patent No. 18/764,159 (see In re Emert, 124 F.3d 1458, 44USPQ2d 1149).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-42 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting, set forth in this Office action, and a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LEE relates to a stack memory device comprises a core chip and a base chip, wherein the core chip includes a data receiver, a strobe signal generation unit, and a test register, wherein the data receiver is configured to receive data outputted from the core chip through a first normal port, the strobe signal generation unit is configured to generate a data strobe signal based on one of a normal strobe signal and a test strobe signal depending on an operation mode, and wherein the test register is configured to store data outputted from the data receiver in response to the data strobe signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632