DETAILED ACTION
Application filed 4/30/2025 has been examined.
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.
Specification and drawings are accepted.
IDS has been considered. PTO-1449 is attached.
Application is pending.
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. 12,306,731B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches a method for evaluating health monitoring logic of a memory device, comprising: receiving, via a mode register, a configuration of the health monitoring logic to monitor a first threshold degradation level associated with the memory device, wherein the configuration corresponds to an expected output of the health monitoring logic while operating according to the configuration; generating, by the health monitoring logic operating according to the configuration, an output indicative of a degradation level of the memory device; comparing the output of the health monitoring logic with the expected output of the health monitoring logic; and transmitting an indication of a fault associated with the health monitoring logic based at least in part on the output of the health monitoring logic being different than the expected output of the health monitoring logic. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. patent ‘731 teaches a method for evaluating health monitoring logic of a memory device, comprising: identifying, at the memory device, a condition associated with a test mode of the memory device; enabling, based on the identifying the condition associated with the test mode, the health monitoring logic of the memory device in a test mode configuration that corresponds to an expected output of the health monitoring logic; and outputting, based on the enabling the health monitoring logic in the test mode configuration that corresponds to the expected output, an indication of a result of the health monitoring logic. The claims are obvious embodiments of each other and not patentably distinct. Both sets of claims are directed towards evaluating health monitoring logic of a memory device based on a configuration and comparing the output with an expected output. Therefore the claim sets are not patentably distinct. A terminal disclaimer would obviate the rejection.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 12,038,806B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, claim 1 of the present application teaches a method for evaluating health monitoring logic of a memory device, comprising: receiving, via a mode register, a configuration of the health monitoring logic to monitor a first threshold degradation level associated with the memory device, wherein the configuration corresponds to an expected output of the health monitoring logic while operating according to the configuration; generating, by the health monitoring logic operating according to the configuration, an output indicative of a degradation level of the memory device; comparing the output of the health monitoring logic with the expected output of the health monitoring logic; and transmitting an indication of a fault associated with the health monitoring logic based at least in part on the output of the health monitoring logic being different than the expected output of the health monitoring logic. Whereas claim 1 of U.S. patent ‘806 teaches a method, comprising: receiving, at a memory device from a host device, one or more indications to evaluate logic for health monitoring of the memory device according to both a first configuration of the logic for health monitoring and a second configuration of the logic for health monitoring; outputting, based at least in part on the one or more indications to evaluate the logic for health monitoring, an indication of a first result of the logic for health monitoring according to the first configuration of the logic for health monitoring; and outputting, based at least in part on the one or more indications to evaluate the logic for health monitoring, an indication of a second result of the logic for health monitoring according to the second configuration of the logic for health monitoring. The claims are obvious embodiments of each other and not patentably distinct. Both sets of claims are directed towards evaluating health monitoring logic of a memory device based on a configuration and comparing the output with an expected output. Therefore the claim sets are not patentably distinct. A terminal disclaimer would obviate the rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights