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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
A number of the references listed on the IDS dated 12/5/2024 were lined through as not considered as they were not included with the submission of the IDS and are not included in the file wrapper for this application.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 2/18/2025 has been entered, and this action is directed towards those claims.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,494,121 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘121 claims and/or combinations of the ‘121 claims cover the entirety of the claimed subject matter currently claimed in the instant application.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,796. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘796 claims and/or combinations of the ‘796 claims cover the entirety of the claimed subject matter currently claimed in the instant application.
Please note that MPEP § 804 states:
“A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03. “
In accordance with MPEP § 804 and §714.03 the examiner will hold any response/amendments to this office action as NON-COMPLIANT without any additional extensions of time that do not contain one of:
An approved Terminal Disclaimer, OR
A Showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims.
In regards to b.) The showing must be made against the claims subject to the rejection (not amended claims), as such the claims as they were originally written and rejected. A showing against amended claims is NOT proper, as the original claims have already been examined (i.e. elected by original presentation, see MPEP §821.03), and presenting all amended claims directed to another patently distinct invention will result in the claims not being entered and being the response designated as nonresponsive. A proper showing or a filing of a terminal disclaimer is required for further consideration of the rejection of the claims. Depending on the claims that have been filed and rejected under NSDP, it may be practically impossible for any arguments and/or evidence to be capable of providing a proper showing that the claims as filed are patentably distinct. In this case, the applicant should file the terminal disclaimer, as it is required for a complete response to this action, and further consideration of the application.
As show below, the filing of a Terminal Disclaimer is not an admission, creates no issues of estoppel, and can be petitioned to be removed once the claims are in condition for allowance and the applicant believes (and can show) the allowable claims are now patentably distinct from the original reference claims.
“The filing of a terminal disclaimer to obviate a rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting is not an admission of the propriety of the rejection. Quad Environmental Technologies Corp. v. Union Sanitary District, 946 F.2d 870, 20 USPQ2d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In Quad Environmental Technologies, the court indicated that the "filing of a terminal disclaimer simply serves the statutory function of removing the rejection of double patenting, and raises neither a presumption nor estoppel on the merits of the rejection." “(MPEP § 804.02).
“If a terminal disclaimer is filed in an application in which the claims are then canceled or otherwise shown to be patentably distinct from the reference claims, the terminal disclaimer may be withdrawn before issuance of the patent by filing a petition under 37 CFR 1.182 requesting withdrawal of the recorded terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer may not be withdrawn after issuance of the patent. See MPEP § 1490, subsection VIII, for a complete discussion of withdrawal of a terminal disclaimer.” (MPEP § 804.02).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-12 and 14-17 will be in condition for allowance once an approved terminal disclaimer has been filed to obviate the NSDP rejections described above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the claims contain very similar allowable subject matter as included in the previous patents, most notably the US patent No 11,494,121 (application 17/098,959) with the limitation of “wherein, for each of the sets of n memory banks, each memory bank of a corresponding set of n memory banks is configured to perform an access operation of data requested by a corresponding in-memory operation circuitry, to which the corresponding set of n memory banks is assigned, while the pipelined operation is performed, and wherein n is a natural number.” Where the currently claimed limitations of “a corresponding set of n memory banks, of the plurality of memory banks, is assigned to a corresponding memory operation circuitry, of the plurality of memory operation circuitries, where n is a natural number; and the corresponding memory operation circuitry is configured to read data received from each assigned memory bank, of the corresponding set of n memory banks, and process the read data in parallel in different stages of the multiple stages of the pipelined operation in each operation cycle.” Are just a slight variation of the ‘121 claims, with the only main difference being the ‘121 claims state “access operation of data requested”, and the current claims are stated slightly differently towards “read data received”.
The claims are allowable for the same reasons stated in the 6/28/2022 Notice of Allowance for the US patent No 11,494,121 (application 17/098,959). Pages 13-23 of the applicant’s remarks, filed 6/13/2022, for the US patent No 11,494,121 (application 17/098,959) give quite a detailed and compelling argument that addresses how the most relevant prior art fails to teach and/or make obvious the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON W BLUST whose telephone number is (571)272-6302. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8:30 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3978. 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.
/JASON W BLUST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132