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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-15 and 21-25) in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/31/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “the memory module…” for consistency and clarity of record the Office suggests amending the claim to recite “the plurality of memory modules” as introduced in claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “the memory module…” for consistency and clarity of record the Office suggests amending the claim to recite “the plurality of memory modules” as introduced in claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites “the memory module…” for consistency and clarity of record the Office suggests amending the claim to recite “the plurality of memory modules” as introduced in claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the first die" in line 2. It is unclear if the claim is introducing a new first die or is intending to refer back to the first memory module?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second die" in line 3. It is unclear if the claim is introducing a new first die or is intending to refer back to the second memory module?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the device" in line 2. It is unclear if the claim is introducing a new device or is intending to refer back to the integrated circuit device of claim 11?
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the first control circuitry" in line 7. It is unclear if the second memory module shares the same first control circuitry with the first memory module or if this a second control circuitry unique to the second memory module?
Note: all dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Prior Art
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Fujiwara et al. (PG Pub 2023/70281) teaches a memory device.
b. Veches et al. (PG Pub 2022/0319569) teaches a memory device.
c. Sohn et al. (PG Pub 2021/0240615) teaches a memory device.
d. Xie et al. (PG Pub 2020/0279793) teaches a memory device.
e. Woo et al. (US Patent No 6,349,050) teaches a memory device.
f. Woo et al. (US Patent No 11,232,029) teaches a memory device.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-8 and 11-15 are allowable.
Claims 9-10 and 21-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 1, a logic die comprising processor circuitry; and a memory die coupled to the logic die, the memory die comprising: a first memory module comprising a first memory bank and first control circuitry; a second memory module comprising a second memory bank and second control circuitry; and a scribe line on a surface of the memory die between the first memory module and the second memory module. Claims 2-10 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 1.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 11, a three-dimensional integrated circuit device comprising: a logic die comprising processor circuitry; and a memory die coupled to the logic die, the memory die comprising a plurality of memory modules, each memory module comprising a memory bank and control circuitry for the memory bank, the memory die further comprising a scribe line on a surface of the memory die between the first memory module and the second respective memory modules. Claims 12-15 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 11.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 21, a package substrate; a logic die; and a memory die comprising: a first memory module comprising a first memory bank and first control circuitry for the first memory bank; a second memory module comprising a second memory bank and first control circuitry for the second memory bank; and a scribe line on a surface of the memory die between the first memory module and the second memory module. Claims 22-25 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights