Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/104,533

NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 01, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, ANTHAN
Art Unit
2825
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
629 granted / 760 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
52.7%
+12.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.5%
-6.5% vs TC avg
§112
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 760 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-18, and 21, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US Pub. 2021/0375901) in view of Pagliato et al. (US Pub. 2023/0201744) and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2022/0028461). Regarding claim 1, Fig. 4 of Oh discloses a non-volatile memory device comprising: a first semiconductor layer [CP] comprising a first cell region [MCA] in which a first memory cell array [CR1] is disposed, a second cell region [MCA] in which a second memory cell array [CR2] is disposed, and a first metal pad layer [within CP], wherein the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array each comprise a plurality of word lines [WL, Fig. 2] stacked in a vertical direction [VD, Fig. 2], a plurality of memory cells [clearly shows in Fig. 2] respectively connected to the plurality of word lines [WL, Fig. 2], and a plurality of bit lines [BL, Fig. 2]; and a second semiconductor layer [LP1] comprising a page buffer circuit region [the whole region comprises both PBC] in which a page buffer circuit connected [as shows in Fig. 5, page buffer region (LP1) is connected to memory cells array region (CP)] to the first memory cell array [memory array in CP region] and the second memory cell array is disposed, and a second metal pad layer [DCC1, Fig. 5], wherein the second semiconductor layer [LP1] is connected to the first semiconductor layer [CP] in the vertical direction [clearly shows in Fig. 4] through bonding [similar to pad DCC1, 16a in Fig. 5] by the first metal pad layer and the second metal pad layer, Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows a first switch connected between a page buffer and a first bit line connected to the first memory array, and a second switch connected between the page buffer and a second bit line connected to the second cell array, and the page buffer comprising a sensing latch connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. However, Fig. 9 of Pagliato discloses a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] circuit having a first switch [switch controls by Sele] connected between a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a first bit line [BLE] connected to the first memory array [ARRAY connects to BLE], and a second switch [switch controls by signal Selo] connected between the page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a second bit line [BLO] connected to the second cell array [array connects to BLO], and the page buffer [102, PAGE BUFER] comprising a sensing latch [903] connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows the page buffer circuit includes at least one transistor that overlaps a boundary region within the first semiconductor layer. However, Fig. 2B of Lee shows a memory device having a boundary region [A1] between a first cell region [MG1] and a second cell region [MG2], and page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2, within layer L1], wherein the page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2] includes at least one transistor [150 or X1 in Fig. 6B] that overlaps a boundary region [as shows in Fig. 2B, region 150, where the transistor is located overlaps a boundary region A1]. . As shows in Fig. 4, the region LP1 is considered a page buffer circuit] overlaps a boundary region [SR, Fig. 4] between the first cell region [CR1] and the second cell region [CR2] when viewed from the vertical direction [VD direction as shows in Fig. 4]. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the page buffer circuit so that it overlaps a boundary region between the first cell region and the second cell region, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lee’s page buffer circuit having at least one transistor overlapping the boundary to Oh’s page buffer in order to create a common page buffer circuit for a purpose of sharing between two different memory regions. Regarding claim 3, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the first semiconductor layer [CP] comprises: wires electrically connected to the plurality of bit lines [vertical line connects to BL]; and first bonding pads [the pad connects to BL] connected to the wires in a region overlapping the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction and forming the first metal pad layer [CP], and the second semiconductor layer [LP1] comprises second bonding pads [DCC1 and 16a] connected to the first bonding pads in a region overlapping the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction, the second bonding pads forming the second metal pad layer, and connected to the page buffer circuit [PBC]. Regarding claim 4, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the first metal pad layer [CP] comprises wires electrically connected to the plurality of bit lines [BL] in a region that does not overlap [region within CR1 region] the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction and extending to a region [SR region, through 24 or 22] overlapping the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction [VD]. Regarding claim 5, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the first metal pad layer [CP] comprises first pads, which are electrically connected to the plurality of bit lines [pad that connects to BL], and are connected to wires that form the first metal pad layer in a region [within region CR1] that does not overlap the boundary region in the vertical direction [CR1 does not overlap boundary region SR], wherein the wires are connected to the page buffer circuit [PBC] by extending to a region [extend to SR region] overlapping the boundary region [extend through line 24 or 22] when viewed from the vertical direction. Regarding claim 7, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the second semiconductor layer further comprises first to fourth metal wire layers [14a, 14b, 14c, 14d], and the first switch [TR1] and the page buffer are connected to each other through a wire formed in one layer from among the first to fourth metal wire layers [clearly shows in Fig. 5] and the second metal pad layer [16a] and extending in a first horizontal direction and a second horizontal direction. Regarding claim 8, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the second semiconductor layer further comprises first to fourth metal wire layers [14a, 14b, 14c, 14d], and the first switch [TR1] and the page buffer [PBC] are connected to each other by wires formed in at least two layers selected from the first to fourth metal wire layers and the second metal pad layer [LP1]. Regarding claim 9, Fig. 5 of Oh discloses wherein the first switch and the second switch [within region PBC] share a source/drain region [Jn11] corresponding to a node connected to the page buffer. Regarding claim 13, Fig. 10 of Oh discloses wherein: a portion of the page buffer is disposed to overlap the first cell region [where BL1 and BL2 are] when viewed from the vertical direction [VD], and the remaining portion [whole SP1 region] of the page buffer is disposed to overlap the second cell region [CR2 region in Fig. 4] when viewed from the vertical direction. Regarding claim 14, Fig. 10 of Oh discloses wherein: the first switch [T1] and the second switch [T2] are arranged to overlap the second cell region [CP] when viewed from the vertical direction, and the page buffer [PBC] is disposed to overlap the first cell region or the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction. Regarding claim 15, Fig. 10 of Oh discloses wherein: the first switch [T1] is disposed to overlap the first cell region [CR1, Fig. 4] when viewed from the vertical direction, the second switch [similar to T1, but in the right PBC region] is disposed to overlap the second cell region [CR2, Fig. 4] when viewed from the vertical direction, and the page buffer [PBC] is disposed to overlap the boundary region when viewed from the vertical direction. Regarding claim 16, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses a first cache latch [within circuit 123] connected to the page buffer [PB] and configured to input/output data for the first memory cell array [110]; and a second cache latch [similar to 123 for the second memory array] connected to the page buffer and configured to input/output data for the second memory cell array. Regarding claim 17, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses wherein: the first cache latch [within 123] is disposed to overlap the first cell region [110 or CR1 in Fig. 4] when viewed from the vertical direction, and the second cache latch [similar to 123 for right PBC] is disposed to overlap the second cell region when viewed from the vertical direction. Regarding claim 18, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses during a read operation [paragraph 0153] or a program operation on the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array, a time period in which the first switch is turned on and a time period in which the second switch is turned on do not overlap, and, during an erase operation on the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array, a time period in which the first switch is turned on and a time period in which the second switch is turned on overlap each other. In addition, MPEP 2114(II) explains the “Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Oh’s device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter my, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device does not possess the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicants are reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence (see MPEP 2145(I))]. Regarding claim 21, Fig. 4 of Oh discloses non-volatile memory device comprising: a first semiconductor layer [CP] comprising a first cell region [CR1] in which a first memory cell array is disposed and a second cell region [CR2] in which a second memory cell array is disposed, wherein the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array each comprises a plurality of word lines [WL in Fig. 2] stacked in a vertical direction [VD], a plurality of memory cells [clearly shows in Fig. 2] respectively connected to the plurality of word lines [WL], and a plurality of bit lines [BL], and wherein the first cell region [CR1] is horizontally separated from the second cell region [CR2] by a boundary region [SR] disposed therebetween; and a second semiconductor layer [LP1] disposed under the first semiconductor layer [CP] and comprising a page buffer circuit region [combination of two PBC regions] in which a page buffer circuit connected to the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array is disposed [as shows in Fig. 1 or Fig. 5], Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows a first switch connected between a page buffer and a first bit line connected to the first memory array, and a second switch connected between the page buffer and a second bit line connected to the second cell array, and the page buffer comprising a sensing latch connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. However, Fig. 9 of Pagliato discloses a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] circuit having a first switch [switch controls by Sele] connected between a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a first bit line [BLE] connected to the first memory array [ARRAY connects to BLE], and a second switch [switch controls by signal Selo] connected between the page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a second bit line [BLO] connected to the second cell array [array connects to BLO], and the page buffer [102, PAGE BUFER] comprising a sensing latch [903] connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows the page buffer circuit includes at least one transistor that overlaps a boundary region within the first semiconductor layer. However, Fig. 2B of Lee shows a memory device having a boundary region [A1] between a first cell region [MG1] and a second cell region [MG2], and page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2, within layer L1], wherein the page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2] includes at least one transistor [150 or X1 in Fig. 6B] that overlaps a boundary region [as shows in Fig. 2B, region 150, where the transistor is located overlaps a boundary region A1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lee’s page buffer circuit having at least one transistor overlapping the boundary to Oh’s page buffer in order to create a common page buffer circuit for a purpose of sharing between two different memory regions. Regarding claim 23, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses a first cache latch [within circuit 123] connected to the page buffer [PB] and configured to input/output data for the first memory cell array [110]; and a second cache latch [similar to 123 for the second memory array] connected to the page buffer and configured to input/output data for the second memory cell array. Regarding claim 24, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses wherein the page buffer circuit comprises: a first page buffer comprising a sensing latch [PB] connected to a first bit line [BL] connected to the first memory cell array [110]; a second page buffer [similar to PB for second region] comprising a sensing latch connected to a second bit line [similar to BL] connected to the second memory cell array; and a cache latch [within 123] connected to the first page buffer and the second page buffer. Regarding claim 25, Fig. 1 of Oh discloses during a read operation [paragraph 0153] or a program operation on the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array, a time period in which the first switch is turned on and a time period in which the second switch is turned on do not overlap, and, during an erase operation on the first memory cell array and the second memory cell array, a time period in which the first switch is turned on and a time period in which the second switch is turned on overlap each other. In addition, MPEP 2114(II) explains the “Manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.” The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Oh’s device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I). Where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter my, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device does not possess the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicants are reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence (see MPEP 2145(I))]. Regarding claim 26, Fig. 4 of Oh discloses a non-volatile memory device comprising: a first memory cell array [CR1] comprising a plurality of word lines [WL shows in Fig. 2] and a plurality of first bit lines [BL as shows in Fig. 2]; a second memory cell array [CR2] comprising a plurality of word lines [WL in Fig. 2] and a plurality of second bit lines [BL as shows in Fig. 2], the second memory cell array [CR2] horizontally separated from the first memory cell array [CR1] by a boundary region [SR] disposed therebetween; and a page buffer circuit [combination of PBC] shared by the first memory cell array [CR1] and the second memory cell array [CR2], Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows a first switch connected between a page buffer and a first bit line connected to the first memory array, and a second switch connected between the page buffer and a second bit line connected to the second cell array, and the page buffer comprising a sensing latch connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. However, Fig. 9 of Pagliato discloses a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] circuit having a first switch [switch controls by Sele] connected between a page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a first bit line [BLE] connected to the first memory array [ARRAY connects to BLE], and a second switch [switch controls by signal Selo] connected between the page buffer [PAGE BUFFER] and a second bit line [BLO] connected to the second cell array [array connects to BLO], and the page buffer [102, PAGE BUFER] comprising a sensing latch [903] connected to the first switch and the second switch in common. Oh discloses all claimed invention, but does not specifically shows the page buffer circuit includes at least one transistor that overlaps a boundary region within the first semiconductor layer. However, Fig. 2B of Lee shows a memory device having a boundary region [A1] between a first cell region [MG1] and a second cell region [MG2], and page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2, within layer L1], wherein the page buffer circuit [combination of R1, 150, and R2] includes at least one transistor [150 or X1 in Fig. 6B] that overlaps a boundary region [as shows in Fig. 2B, region 150, where the transistor is located overlaps a boundary region A1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Lee’s page buffer circuit having at least one transistor overlapping the boundary to Oh’s page buffer in order to create a common page buffer circuit for a purpose of sharing between two different memory regions. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 13-18, and 21, 23-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8709. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 9AM-5:00PM. 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, Alexander G Sofocleous can be reached on 571-272-0635. 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. /ANTHAN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 01, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 01, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 27, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 22, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 31, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 18, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 21, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12586631
MEMORY DEVICE HAVING LOAD OFFSET MISMATCH COMPENSATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12567463
THREE-STATE PROGRAMMING OF MEMORY CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12562225
HYBRID MEMORY FOR NEUROMORPHIC APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548605
INTERFACE CIRCUIT AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12548606
MULTI-MODE COMPATIBLE ZQ CALIBRATION CIRCUIT IN MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+3.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 760 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month