DETAILED ACTION
The current Office Action is in response to the papers submitted 05/02/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending
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 .
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 of U.S. Patent No. 12327047. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons listed below.
Instant Application
Pat 12327047
Reasoning
1. A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising:
identifying a threshold period of time corresponding to a characteristic associated with a memory access command;
determining that a period of time associated with a notification corresponding to the memory access command satisfies the threshold period of time, wherein the period of time associated with the notification is a duration between notifying a host system of a completion of execution of a previous memory access command and completion of execution of the memory access command; and
responsive to determining that the period of time associated with the notification of the memory access command satisfies the threshold period of time, notifying the host system of completion of execution of the memory access command.
1. A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, operatively coupled with the memory device, to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a host system, a memory access command; executing the memory access command; identifying a characteristic associated with the memory access command; identifying a threshold period of time corresponding to the characteristic associated with the memory access command; determining that a period of time associated with a command completion notification of a plurality of memory access commands comprising the memory access command satisfies the threshold period of time, wherein the period of time associated with the command completion notification is a duration between notifying the host system of a completion of execution of a previous memory access command and completion of execution of the memory access command; and responsive to determining that the period of time associated with the command completion notification of the plurality of memory access commands satisfies the threshold period of time, notifying the host system of completion of execution of the memory access command.
Both sets of claim disclose identifying a threshold period of time based on a memory access command characteristic, determining that a period of time satisfies the threshold, the period of time is the time between host being notified of a previous memory command completion and execution of the memory access command, and notifying the host of completion of the memory access command in response to the determination.
2
2
Both claims disclose the same language.
3
3
Both claims disclose the same language.
4
4
Both claims disclose the same language.
5
5
Both claims disclose the same language.
6
1
Claim 6 of the instant application discloses the threshold is preconfigured in order to meet requirement of the memory device. Claim 1 of Pat 12327047 discloses the use of a threshold to know when to perform a function of the memory system. The use of the threshold shows the threshold was preconfigured before it was used in a comparison. Performing a function based on the comparison of the threshold shows the threshold is used to meet a requirement of when to perform an operation in the system.
7
6
Both claims disclose the same language.
8
7
Both claims disclose the same language.
9
8
Both claims disclose the same language.
10
9
Both claims disclose the same language.
11
1
Claim 11 of the instant application discloses the threshold is preconfigured in order to meet requirement of the memory device. Claim 1 of Pat 12327047 discloses the use of a threshold to know when to perform a function of the memory system. The use of the threshold shows the threshold was preconfigured before it was used in a comparison. Performing a function based on the comparison of the threshold shows the threshold is used to meet a requirement of when to perform an operation in the system.
12
10
Both claims disclose the same language.
13
11
Both claims disclose the same language.
14
12
Both claims disclose the same language.
15
13
Both claims disclose the same language.
16
14
Both claims disclose the same language.
17
15
Both claims disclose the same language.
18
16
Both claims disclose the same language.
19
1
Claim 19 of the instant application discloses the threshold is preconfigured in order to meet requirement of the memory device. Claim 1 of Pat 12327047 discloses the use of a threshold to know when to perform a function of the memory system. The use of the threshold shows the threshold was preconfigured before it was used in a comparison. Performing a function based on the comparison of the threshold shows the threshold is used to meet a requirement of when to perform an operation in the system.
20
17
Both claims disclose the same language.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 recite the limitations determining that a period of time satisfies the threshold period of time and notifying the host in response to the determination that the period of time satisfies the threshold period of time. There is no indication as to what is meant by satisfying the threshold in the claim or specification. This could mean the period of time is either less than, the same, and/or greater than the threshold period of time. This shows the scope of satisfying a threshold is indefinite and therefore the claim is indefinite.
All remaining claims are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Examiner’s Note
Due to the numerous inconsistencies identified above between the current claims and original specification and/or drawings any lack of prior art rejection(s) is due to a proper scope of the claim(s) not being ascertained at this time. The lack of any prior art rejections is not to be taken as any indication of patentability; it is a result of the indefiniteness of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what is meant for a period of time to satisfy a threshold. The period of time satisfying a threshold is a key aspect to the claim and prevents a valid and reasonable search from being performed. A search of the inventive concept from the specification was performed and any related references are provided. The Applicant is asked to make sure any future amendments to the claims put the claims in better form with regard to what is specifically disclosed in the original specification and drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D BIRKHIMER whose telephone number is (571)270-1178. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 Hoteling.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
/Christopher D Birkhimer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights