DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 18 March 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Related U.S. Application Data
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/880,653, filed on Aug. 04, 2022, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,901,210; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/146,416, filed on January 11, 2021, now U.S. Pat. No. 11,443,971; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/537,564, filed on Aug. 10, 2019, now abandoned; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/460,230, filed on Mar. 16, 2017, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,497,713; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/821,683, filed on Aug. 7, 2015, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,613,844; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/492,395, filed on Jun. 8, 2012, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,136,153; which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/273,712, filed Oct. 14, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,273,610; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/016,313, filed on Jan. 28, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,362,482; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/970,602, filed on Dec. 16, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,711,407; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/949,617, filed on Nov. 18, 2010, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,754,533.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The replacement sheet of drawings were received on 18 March 2025. These drawings are not acceptable, since the drawings do not show the claimed “configurations” of the plurality of memory circuits required in independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Independent claim 1 requires “said plurality of memory control circuits comprise configurations which adjust memory cell write voltages based on temperature information”. Independent claim 8 requires “said plurality of memory control circuits comprise configurations which adjust refresh operations based on on-chip temperature information”. Independent claim 15 requires “said memory control circuits comprise configurations which periodically read reference cells and adjust write voltages and/or refresh operations based on temperature history”. These memory control circuit configurations recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 must be shown in the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 18 March 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on application Serial Nos. 18/344475 and 18/542757 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “said plurality of memory control circuits comprise configurations which adjust memory cell write voltages based on temperature information”. Independent claim 8 recites “said plurality of memory control circuits comprise configurations which adjust refresh operations based on on-chip temperature information”. Independent claim 15 recites “said memory control circuits comprise configurations which periodically read reference cells and adjust write voltages and/or refresh operations based on temperature history.”. However, Applicant’s specification does not describe or show these memory control circuit configurations in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The only disclosure of these configurations of the memory cell circuits is in the Summary and the Claims sections of Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant has not disclosed, described, or shown in the application drawings the configuration of these memory control circuits. There is no disclosure of what circuit elements these configurations comprise or require to perform the claimed functions. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Although the subject matter of the claims need not be described literally (i.e., using the same terms or in haec verba) in order for Applicant’s disclosure to satisfy the description requirement., in order to satisfy the written description requirement, Applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor(s) was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon "reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter." Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, inventor was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. In the instant application, Applicant has not described, disclosed, or shown these memory control circuits. Therefore, Applicant’s specification fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
With respect to independent claim 1, it is unclear how said plurality of memory control circuits are configured to adjust memory cell write voltages based on temperature information. It is unclear what this claim limitation actually requires or encompasses within the context of the claim. Similarly, independent claim 8 recites “said plurality of memory control circuits comprise configurations which adjust refresh operations based on on-chip temperature information”. It is unclear what this claim limitation actually requires or encompasses within the context of the claim. It is unclear what circuit elements are required to comprise these configurations. Independent claim 15 recites “said memory control circuits comprise configurations which periodically read reference cells and adjust write voltages and/or refresh operations based on temperature history”. Similarly, it is unclear what this claim limitation actually requires or encompasses within the context of the claim. It is unclear in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 how these memory cell circuits are actually “configured”? Do these circuits require certain circuit elements so that they structurally further limit the claimed 3D semiconductor device? If so, it is unclear what elements are required. Are the circuits capable of measuring a temperature, since their function is based on temperature information? It is unclear what this claim limitation actually requires or encompasses within the context of the claim. The language of a claim must clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, since patented claims place the public on notice of the scope of the patentee's right to exclude. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from this application.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The above-identified claims recite further functions of the memory control circuits or processing limitations, however, these claims do not further limit the structure of the 3D semiconductor device of the independent claims from which these claims depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that amended Fig. 88 and paragraph [000665] overcome the objection to the drawings. However, as disclosed in Applicant’s originally-filed specification, Fig. 88 is an exemplary drawing illustration of write voltages for floating-body RAM cells may be based on the distance of the memory cell from its write circuits. Fig. 88 illustrates an embodiment of the invention wherein write voltages for floating-body RAM cells may be substantially or partly based on the distance of the memory cell from its write circuits. As an illustrative example, memory array portion 20900 may include bit-lines 20910, 20912, 20914 and 20916 and may include memory rows 20902, 20904, 20906 and 20908, and may include write driver circuits 20950.. Fig. 88 does not show the configurations of the plurality of memory control circuits, as required in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Nor does paragraph [000665] mention memory control circuits or the configuration of memory control circuits. Applicant’s specification does not describe or show these memory control circuit configurations in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
However, the only showing of control circuits is in Figs. 5B and 5C, Applicant discloses that FIG. 5C is an exemplary drawing illustration of power control circuits. FIG. 5B is an exemplary drawing illustration of underlying back bias circuits. Applicant discloses that the back bias level control circuit 1720 may be controlling the oscillators 1727 and 1729 to drive the voltage generators 1721. These figures actually show control circuits, unlike Fig. 88. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of any patent that ultimately issues from this application. Since Applicant’s specification fails to show any configuration for the plurality of memory control circuits required in independent claims 1, 8, and 15, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is encompassed by “said plurality of memory control circuits comprising configurations” so as to avoid infringement.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898