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 .
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
a. Independent: 1 and 11
b. Pending: 1-20
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is submitted on 12/26/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 and method for entering and exiting command bus training mode by detecting two different logic levels at a data terminal respectively.
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. 10720197. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when we compare both claim sets, we find that same claim limitations are distributed over the ranges.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11195566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when we compare both claim sets, we find that same claim limitations are distributed over the ranges.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11715504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when we compare device claim sets, we find that same claim limitations are distributed over the ranges of two device claim sets.
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12217823. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when we compare method claim sets, we find that same claim limitations are distributed over the ranges of two method claim sets.
Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 20250149076 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when we compare method claim sets, we find that same claim limitations are distributed over the ranges of two method claim sets.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Keeth et al. (US 20050185498)
Regarding independent claim 1, Keeth discloses a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) device (Figs. 1-2) configured to perform a command bus training (CBT) operation (Claim 95 describes generating a training pattern for use in calibrating a memory device, comprising: an signal path for coupling to a command bus or a flag signal input of said memory device), the DRAM device comprising:
a clock terminal configured to receive a clock signal (CCLK; Fig. 1);
a data clock terminal configured to receive a data clock signal (DCLK0, DCLK1; Fig. 1);
a first data terminal configured to receive a first data signal (DQ0; Fig. 1);
a plurality of command/address terminals configured to receive a CBT pattern during the CBT operation, the CBT pattern comprising a plurality of command/address signals (command bus CAO-9; Fig. 1);
a plurality of second data terminals configured to receive second data signals (DQ1-17; Fig. 1), the plurality of second data terminals being in one-to-one correspondence with the command/address signals during the CBT operation; and
a CBT control logic (13; Fig. 1) configured to:
Keeth fails to disclose the plurality of second data terminals being in one-to-one correspondence with the command/address signals during the CBT operation; and
determine logic level of the first data signal at one of rising edge and falling edge of the data clock signal and enter into a CBT mode upon determining a first logic level of the first data signal; determine logic levels of the CBT pattern based on a reference voltage at one of rising edge and falling edge of the clock signal and output the determined CBT pattern through the plurality of second data terminals; and exit the CBT mode upon determining a second logic level of the first data signal, wherein the first logic level of the first data signal is different from the second logic level of the first data signal, and wherein the plurality of second data terminals and the first data terminal are different from each other and thus the second data signals do not include the first data signal during the CBT operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA BEGUM whose telephone number is (571)431-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Richard Elms can be reached at 571272 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.
/SULTANA BEGUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights