Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2-21 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,287,975. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,287,975 (hereinafter, “Patent”), contains every element of claims 2-21 of the instant application (hereinafter, “Instant Applicant”) and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
"A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). " ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
“Claim 12 and Claim 13 are generic to the species of invention covered by claim 3 of the patent. Thus, the generic invention is "anticipated" by the species of the patented invention. Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (holding that an earlier species disclosure in the prior art defeats any generic claim) 4. This court's predecessor has held that, without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); Schneller, 397 F.2d at 354. Accordingly, absent a terminal disclaimer, claims 12 and 13 were properly rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.” (In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993).
U.S. Patent No. 11,287,975
Instant Application
Claim 1. A memory system comprising: an interface configured to receive data; a nonvolatile memory including a plurality of blocks, each of the plurality of blocks being a unit for an erase operation; and a controller electrically connected to the nonvolatile memory and configured to: copy first data from a first block to a second block, the number of erase operations performed on the second block being larger than the number of erase operations performed on the first block; and when the copying is not performed, write second data to a third block, the second data being data that is received through the interface and has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory.
Claim 2. A method comprising: issuing a write request to a memory device; and transferring first data from a main memory via a bus to the memory device, wherein the memory device includes: an interface; and a nonvolatile memory including a plurality of blocks, each of the plurality of blocks being a unit of a data erase operation, the plurality of blocks including at least a first block, a second block, and a third block, and the method further comprises: copying second data from the first block to the second block, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smaller than the number of data erase operations performed on the second block; and when the copying is not being performed, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the third block in accordance with the write request.
Reasons of Allowance
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The closest prior art, Chang (US Patent #7,035,967), discloses “issuing a write request to a memory device; and transferring first data from a main memory via a bus to the memory device, wherein the memory device includes: an interface; and a nonvolatile memory including a plurality of blocks, each of the plurality of blocks being a unit of a data erase operation, the plurality of blocks including at least a first block, a second block, and a third block”.
However, the prior art differs from the present invention because the prior art fails to disclose “the method further comprises: copying second data from the first block to the second block, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smaller than the number of data erase operations performed on the second block; and when the copying is not being performed, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the third block in accordance with the write request”.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent Claim 2 identifies the distinct features “the method further comprises: copying second data from the first block to the second block, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smaller than the number of data erase operations performed on the second block; and when the copying is not being performed, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the third block in accordance with the write request", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Independent Claim 12 identifies the distinct features “the method further comprises: selecting a first block from the plurality of free blocks, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smallest of the numbers of data erase operations performed on the plurality of free blocks; and in response to the write request, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the selected first block", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Claims 2-21 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the claimed features as mentioned above in combination with other claimed features are not recited or suggested by the prior art of records. The above features in conjunction with all other limitations of the dependent and independent claims 2-10 are hereby allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Langlois et al. (Pub. No.: US 2010/0037001) “Flash Memory Based Storage Devices Utilizing Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM)”
Considered for teachings related to flash memory based storage devices.
Does not disclose or suggest the method further comprises: copying second data from the first block to the second block, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smaller than the number of data erase operations performed on the second block; and when the copying is not being performed, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the third block in accordance with the write request.
Biswas et al. (Pub. No.: US 2008/0282025) “Wear Leveling In Storage Devices Based On Flash Memories And Related Circuit, System, And Method”
Considered for teachings related to the storage device field. More specifically, an embodiment of the present invention relates to wear leveling in storage devices based on flash memories.
Does not disclose or suggest the method further comprises: copying second data from the first block to the second block, the number of data erase operations performed on the first block being smaller than the number of data erase operations performed on the second block; and when the copying is not being performed, receiving the first data, which has not been stored in the nonvolatile memory, through the interface and writing the first data to the third block in accordance with the write request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Yong Choe at telephone number 571-270-1053 or email to yong.choe@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 am to 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutz, Jared Ian can be reached on (571) 272-5535. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PMR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-irect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG J CHOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights