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 .
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. 12,046,296. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,237,726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,257,546. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,081,200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,221,800. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,086,572. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,029,890. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,474,748. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,562,793. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,657,886. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12/009,034. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are clearly anticipated by the patented application claims.
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 1, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Danjean (US 2019/0130967).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 18, Danjean discloses a device and related method, comprising: memory cells; a read circuit configured to apply voltages to the memory cells and determine states of the memory cells under the voltages (see Figures 4-5); and a logic circuit coupled to the read circuit and configured to, in response to a command to read the memory cells (see paragraph 0036): determine, using the read circuit, signal and noise characteristics of the memory cells at a plurality of voltages; compute a read voltage based on the signal and noise characteristics (see Figure 6, 610); instruct the read circuit to determine states of the memory cells at the read voltage and two voltages identified based on the read voltage (See Figure 3, 320 and offsets of 340, 342); and generate a response to the command based on the states of the memory cells at the read voltage and the two voltages identified based on the read voltage (640).
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danjean (US 2019/0130967) in view of Tseng (US 2011/0317488).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Danjean appears to teach that the two voltages have offsets of a same predetermined amount from the read voltage (see Figure 3), but Danjean fails to attest that the drawings are to scale or disclose specifics as to the voltage offset values. However, it was known at the time of filing to provide soft decision voltage offsets of equal predetermined amounts (see Tseng, Figure 7A, and paragraph 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide the same predetermined offsets with the device/method of Danjean since it is suggested by the drawings, this was a known technique at the time of filing as illustrated by Tseng, and it would yield the predictable result of a symmetrical reading about the non-offset read voltage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 13-17 and 29-20 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 pending applicant’s overcoming the double patenting rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination instruct the read circuit to determine states of the meory cells at the two voltages in response to the command is of a first type; and in response to a command of a second type to read the memory cells, the logic circuit is configured to generate a response based on states of the memory cells at a corresponding read voltage without determination of states of the memory cells at two voltages identified based on the corresponding read voltage as in claims 3 and 13; or generate first data based on states of the memory cells at the read voltage; and generate second data based on exclusive or (XOR) of states of the memory cells at the two voltages as in claims 5, 15 and 19.
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/577,716. All claims are identical to the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The claims filed herein are identical to those filed in ‘716 original. These claims were properly rejected on 12/05/22, 4/26/23 and 8/30/23 and the basis of these rejections is repeated herein.
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 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