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 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 087, 690. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the present Application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 087, 690.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 804, 200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the present Application are anticipated or obvious by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 804, 200.
Present Application
US Patent No. 12, 087, 690
US Patent No. 10, 804, 200
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 7
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 2, Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 12
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 1
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 2
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claim 2
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 2
Claim 12
Claim 12
Claim 3
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 14
Claim 14
Claim 12
Claim 15
Claim 15
Claim 9
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claims 9-13
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 6
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 7
Claim 19
Claim 19
Claims 9-15
Claim 20
Claim 20
Claims 1, 2
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if Applicant would overcome the Double rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the first and second cells are arranged along the vertical direction and the power conductive lines of the first and second cells abuts each other as required by independent claim 1.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the first and second cells are arranged along a vertical direction and the first and second edges abuts each other as required by independent claim 8.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest each of the first and second cells including a power conductive line, and the power conductive lines abutting each other as required by independent claim 15.
The closest prior art, e.g. Lu (US 2014/0183647, cited in IDS) and Lu’426 (US 2012/0331426, cited in IDS) discloses an integrated circuit comprising a first and a second cells but does not disclose or reasonably suggest the cited above limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights