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 .
1. Claims 1-24 are present for examination.
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.
2. Claims 14-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,195 (same assignee/inventor). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following claim comparisons:
Claim 14 (of this application) recite similar language as claim 1 (of patent ‘195), which both includes similar claimed elements and operations such as, i.e., a memory device configured to loop back a first clock to provide second clock, and a memory controller performing a modulation on a source clock to output a first clock to the memory device, etc.
Claims 15-17 (application) also recites similar language taken from claim 1 (patent ‘195 (patent 195).
Claims 18-19 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 2-3 (patent ‘195 (patent 195), respectively.
Claims 20-21 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 4-5 (patent ‘195 (patent 195), respectively.
Claims 22-24 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 6-8 (patent ‘195 (patent 195), respectively.
3. Claims 14-17 & 19-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 11,646,068 (same assignee/inventor). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably d Claim 14 (of this application) recite similar language as claim 1 (of patent ‘068), which both includes similar claimed elements and operations such as, i.e., a memory device configured to loop back a first clock to provide second clock, and a memory controller performing a modulation on a source clock to output a first clock to the memory device, etc.
Claims 15-17 (application) also recites similar language taken from claim 1 (patent ‘195 (patent 068).
Claim 19 (application) also recites similar language taken from claim 1 (patent ‘195 (patent 068), respectively.
Claim 20 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 2 & 3 (patent ‘195 (patent 068).
Claim 21 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 4 & 5 (patent ‘195 (patent 068).
Claims 22-23 (application) also recites similar language taken from claims 6-7 (patent ‘195 (patent 068), respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-13 are allowable over the prior arts of record for recutting usage of a data transmitter for transferring data through a fist channel corresponding to a host request, and a toggle transmitter configured to generate a dummy toggle in one or more second channels other than a first channel in which the data is transferred, wherein the dummy toggle is a pulse of a certain magnitude that is applied to a memory devices, which are coupled to the first channels corresponding to the request. None of these limitations are clearly suggested by the existing prior arts (alone or in combination) nor they are seen elsewhere at this time.
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3PM EST.
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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at 571-272-1852. 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.
/VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights