DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently amended.
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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/18/2025 and 10/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 15-20 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.
Claim 15 describes providing a training pattern to a memory device and then evaluating a performance of the memory device based on the training pattern. Claim 15 then says to write a value of a respective parameter value of an operating parameter associated with a first one of a plurality of set points. It is unclear how the value of the respective parameter value of an operating parameter associated with a first one of a plurality of set points has any connection to the providing a training pattern and evaluating a performance of the memory. There is no mention of how the evaluation of performance of a memory device based on a training pattern produces the parameter value, where the operating parameter is defined, or what a plurality of set points has to do with evaluating the performance of the memory device. There needs to be more information added to the claim so that it is clear how the value of the parameter value is found or created, what the operating parameters are and where the plurality of set points fit in with the training pattern and the performance of the memory device.
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. 9,934,831. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed towards the same functionality.
Comparing claim 1 of the instant application to claim 1 of the ‘831 patent, both teach writing first and second parameter codes for an operating parameter in a mode register, and writing a third parameter code for a control parameter and setting a current operating condition of the memory to one of a plurality of operating conditions. The main difference is that claim 1 of the instant application is directed towards a memory controller, while claim 1 of the ‘831 patent is directed toward an apparatus. This difference is not enough to make the claims patentably distinct. Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for at least their dependence upon rejected claim 1 above.
Comparing claim 8 of the instant application to claim 1 of the ‘831 patent, both teach wiring a value to a mode register of a memory device to cause ethe memory device to switch between a plurality of set points based on the value written the mode register. The examiner is interpreting the “set points” of the instant application to be equivalent to the “parameter codes” of the ‘831 patent. The main difference is that claim 8 of the instant application is directed towards a memory controller, while claim 1 of the ‘831 patent is directed toward an apparatus. This difference is not enough to make the claims patentably distinct. Dependent claims 10-11 are rejected for at least their dependence upon rejected claim 8 above.
Comparing claim 15 of the instant application to claims 9-10 of the ‘831 patent, they teach evaluate a performance of the memory device based on a training pattern and write a value of a respective parameter value of an operating parameter associated with a first one of a plurality of set points (Claim 10, perform training operations for the first and second operating conditions to determine the first and second parameter codes for the operating parameter). While claims 9 and 10 do not specifically describe “provide a training pattern to the memory device”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, that in order for the controller to perform the training operations that it is necessary for the training metrics or “training pattern” to be provided. The other difference is that claim 8 of the instant application is directed towards a memory controller, while claim 1 of the ‘831 patent is directed toward an apparatus. This difference is not enough to make the claims patentably distinct. Dependent claims 16-20 are rejected for at least their dependence upon rejected claim 15 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al (US 8,335,941, hereinafter referred to as Chang).
As per claim 8:
Chang discloses a memory controller configured to write a value to a mode register of a memory device to cause the memory device to switch between a plurality of set points based on the value written to the mode register (Chang: Claim 6, monitoring a data volume of a buffer to determine whether to switch to one of the modes, changing operating parameters to enter the new modes, interpreting the buffer as the mode register and the operating parameters as the set points).
As per claim 9:
Chang discloses writing the value to the mode register further causes the memory device to switch a plurality of operating parameters associated with the plurality of set points simultaneously (Chang: Claim 6, “each of the operating parameter sets has individual values of a circuit voltage supplied to the circuit, a memory voltage supplied to the memory, a memory frequency for operating the memory, and a processor frequency for operating the processor”).
As per claim 10:
Chang discloses set points of the plurality of set points are associated with different operating frequencies of the memory device (Chang: Claim 6 “each of the operating parameter sets has individual values of… a memory frequency for operating the memory”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY K HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 - 3:30 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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/ZACHARY K HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights