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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to claim 1, the claim uses language that is overly vague making it unclear how to interpret the metes and bounds of the claim. In particular, the language following “such that:” including “the first set of data is followed by the first set of ECC data; the first set of data is preceded by a second set of data; and the second set of data is preceded by a second set of ECC data associated with the second set of data.” It is not clear as written if the claim is attempting to define the order in which the data and ECC data are stored as it is written to the memory (i.e. order of write instructions) or, alternatively, the order in which the data and ECC data are logically or physically stored in the memory itself.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claims 2 and 3, both claims have a similar issue as claim 1 above in the fact that each claim recites a vague relationship between the first set of data immediately adjacent to the first set of ECC data and to the second set of data.
Claims 3 recites the limitation "the memory" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claim 5, the claim is unclear because of the previously explained ambiguities in claim 1. Claim 5 recites “…to store the first set of ECC data in the ECC cache”. Is this supposed to be interpreted to mean that the first set of ECC data is stored in the claimed “memory” of claim 1 and the ECC cache? Or is all data stored in the ECC cache since there is some type of relationship where the first set of ECC follows the first set of data?
Referring to claim 6, the claim has the same issue with regard to storing the first set of ECC data in the ECC cache as claim 5.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 possess the same indefinite issues as explained in the rejections of 1-3, 5, and 6, above.
Referring to claim 16, the claim recites multiple instances of the term, “data” and “respective ECC data” (lines 4 and 5) rendering the claim unclear as to whether each instance of “data” and “ECC data” are referring to the same or different data and ECC data in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the memory" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claims 17, 19, and 20, the claims attempt to further limit claim 16 and recite a generated “set of ECC data”. However, it is not clear if this “set of ECC data” relates to the multiple instances of “respective ECC data” of claim 16?
Referring to claims 19 and 20, the claims recite a similar ambiguity regarding the claimed “ECC cache” as explained in the rejections of claims 5 and 6 above.
Due to the number of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner has provided a number of examples of the claim deficiencies in the above rejection(s), however, the list of rejections may not be all inclusive. Applicant should refer to these rejection(s) as examples of deficiencies and should make all the necessary corrections to eliminate the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) problems and place the claims in a proper format.
Due to the vagueness and a lack of clear definiteness in the articles used in the claims, the claims have been treated on their merits as best understood by the examiner.
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. 11,119,909, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,726,907, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,204,443. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are encompassed within the claims of the ‘909, 907, and ‘443 patents, and, therefore, are obvious variations of those claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights