DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MEMORY DEVICE, MEMORY SYSTEM AND ZQ CALIBRATION METHOD.
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 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,062,744. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar limitations regarding ZQ calibration for a memory device, wherein the ZQ calibration is in response to one of the internal ZQ start signal and external ZQ start signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed if the double patenting rejection above is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance:
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. Qawami et al. (US 10,381,055), Lee et al. (US 10,361,699), McCall et al. (US 10,025,685) and Latham et al. (US 6,492,853), taken individually or in combination, do not teach the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations:
With respect to independent claim 1: wherein when the selected ZQ mode indicates the background calibration mode, the ZQCal start command from the external memory controller is ignored.
With respect to independent claim 11: wherein when the background calibration mode is set in the first mode register, the memory device ignores the ZQCal start command from the memory controller.
With respect to independent claim 16: wherein when the selected ZQ mode indicates the background calibration mode, the memory controller is further configured to ignore the ZQCal start command from the memory controller.
Qawami et al. teach, in FIG. 4, a background calibration mode corresponding to AY[1:0] having value 11, and command-based calibration mode corresponding to AY[1:0] having value 10. Qawami implicitly teaches wherein when the selected mode indicates the background calibration mode, the calibration start command from the external memory controller is ignored because AY[1:0] can only have one value at a time. However, Qawami describes the calibration modes are for DLL instead of ZQ.
Tian (PGPub. 2023/0386599) taches, in FIG. 2, a background calibration mode for off-chip ZQ calibration operation, and a command-based calibration mode for on-chip ZQ calibration operation. Tian further teaches a second selection circuit 132 for selecting one of the mode in response to selection signal. However, Tian is not qualified as prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VANTHU NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM - 3:00PM.
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 at (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.
July 8, 2026
/VANTHU T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights