DETAILED ACTION
This Final action is responsive to communications: 11/25/2025.
Applicant amended claims 1-2, 6, and 8-10; cancelled claims 16-18; added new claims 19-20. Claims 1-15, 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 19 are independent.
Examiner Notes
A) Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. B) Per MPEP 2173.04 “If the claim is too broad because it reads on the prior art, a rejection under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be appropriate”. C) Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant's claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Other passages and figures may apply as well. Per MPEP 2141.02 VI prior art must be considered in its entirety. D) Per MPEP 2112 and 2112 V, express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
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 .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
7. Claims 9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ingalls et al. (US 2020/0349990 A1), in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0084578 A1).
Regarding independent claim 9, Ingalls teaches a memory apparatus (para [0021], Fig. 1 “memory device”) comprising:
a plurality of sequentially stacked memory cell arrays each comprising a plurality of word lines (para [0021], Fig. 1: MB arrays shown);
a sub-word line driver block (para [0048]-para [0049], Fig. 4B: sub-word line drivers) configured to enable at least one word line (Fig. 4B: WL0, WL2) among the plurality of word lines of each of the plurality of memory cell arrays (Fig. 4B) based on
a first main word line signal (Fig. 4B: GR0 signal), a second main word line signal (Fig. 4B: GR1 signal), and a sub-word line selection signal (Fig. 4B: PH0); and
a main word line driver block (“main word line drivers”, see Fig. 4A: 410, 430 MWD and para [0047]) configured to enable the first (Fig. 4A: GR0) and second (Fig. 4A: GR1) main word line signals based on a pre-decoding signal (Fig. 4A: ARMW0/ ARMW0F) and an even and odd selection signal (Fig. 4A: RF3<0>/ RF3F<0> enables GR0 and RF3<1>/ RF3F<1> enables GR1. See para [0047]),
PNG
media_image1.png
719
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the sub-word line driver block comprises a first sub-word line driver block (see Ingalls Fig. 2: group of alternating SWDs in SECT0 coupled to GR0) configured to enable first word lines (Ingalls Fig. 2, Fig. 4B: WL0) of the plurality of memory cell arrays and a second sub-word line driver block (see Ingalls Fig. 2: group of alternating SWDs in SECT1 coupled to GR1) configured to enable second word lines (Ingalls Fig. 2, Fig. 4B: WL2) of the plurality of memory cell arrays (it is further noted that this driver block feature does not carry patentable weight since it can be achieved via rearrangement of block locations without changing overall operations and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art).
Ingalls is silent with respect to plurality of memory cell arrays being sequentially stacked.
Li teaches plurality of sequentially stacked memory cell arrays each comprising a plurality of word lines and word line driver arranged at base layer (see Fig. 5: 12, 14, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Li’s array/ Bank arrangement into the apparatus of Ingalls such that an architecture of sequentially stacked plurality of memory cell arrays can be employed in order to reduce lateral space (Li para [0021]
Regarding claim 12, Ingalls and Li teach the memory apparatus according to claim 9. Ingalls teach wherein the main word line driver block (“main word line drivers”, see Fig. 4A: 410, 430 MWD and para [0047]) comprises a main word line driver (Fig. 4A: 410, 430) configured to enable one of the first and second main word line signals (Fig. 4A: one of GR0, GR1) based on the pre-decoding signal (Fig. 4A: ARMW0/ ARMW0F) and the even and odd selection signal (Fig. 4A: RF3<0>/ RF3F<0> enables GR0 and RF3<1>/ RF3F<1> enables GR1. See para [0047]).
Regarding claim 13, Ingalls and Li teach the memory apparatus according to claim 12. Ingalls teach wherein the main word line driver is configured to: enable an enable control signal when the pre-decoding signal is asserted (Fig. 4A: ARMW0/ ARMW0F), enable the first main word line signal (Fig. 4A: GR0) when the even and odd selection signal has a first logic level (Fig. 4A: RF3F<0> is 0 and RF3F<1> is 1 produces GR0 signal), and enable the second main word line signal (Fig. 4A: GR1) when the even and odd selection signal has a second logic level (Fig. 4A: RF3F<0> is 1 and RF3F<1> is 0 produces GR1 signal).
Regarding claim 14, Ingalls and Li teach the memory apparatus according to claim 9. Li teaches wherein the main word line driver block is disposed on a plane different from a plane on which the plurality of memory cell arrays is disposed (see Fig. 5: 12, 14, 16).
Regarding claim 15, Ingalls and Li teach the memory apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the main word line driver block is disposed under the plurality of memory cell arrays (see Fig. 5: 12, 14, 16).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 19-20 are indicated as allowable.
Claims 10-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims listed above, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination for the limitations of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Previous spec objections are being withdrawn based on spec amendment dated 11/25/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 have been considered but are partly 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. See new formulated rejection using Ingalls reference. Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant's claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Other passages and figures may apply as well. Per MPEP 2141.02 VI prior art must be considered in its entirety.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon (MPEP § 707.05) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim (US 2020/0349998 A1): Fig. 1-Fig. 8 disclosure applicable for all claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSHFIQUE SIDDIQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-0424. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 George Sofocleous can be reached at (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.
/MUSHFIQUE SIDDIQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825