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 .
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are present for examination.
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 3, 8-12, 14, and 17 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the ground" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "first states" and “second states” in line 6, “first states” in line 11 and “second states” in line 14. It is unclear whether “the first states” in line 15 relates back to “first states” in line 6 or line 11 and “the second states” relates back to “second states” in line 6 or line 14.
Claims(s) 9-12 are dependent on claim 8 and are therefore rejected for the reason(s) of indefiniteness as indicated above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the ground voltage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the ground voltage" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the ground voltage" in lines 1-2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joo et al. (US 20200143883 A1).
Regarding claim 13: Joo discloses a method of operating a semiconductor device and method of operating (100, FIG. 1), the method comprising: applying a first operating voltage (Vpass1) to a selected word line (sel_WL) coupled to a plurality of memory cells; sensing the plurality of memory cells based on the first operating voltage; decreasing a voltage level of the selected word line (decrease after Vpass2 during T4-T5, FIG. 6C) by electrically coupling the selected word line to a ground node; generating a second operating voltage (Vread); applying the second operating voltage to the selected word line (Vread to sel_WL, par. 80, FIG. 6C); and sensing the plurality of memory cells based on the second operating voltage.
Regarding claim 14: Joo discloses a method of operating a semiconductor device and method of operating (100, FIG. 1), wherein applying the first operating voltage comprises applying the first operating voltage (Vpass1 to sel_WL, FIG. 6C), higher than the ground voltage and the second operating voltage (Vpass1 greater than initial ground voltage from T1 and Vread from T5, FIG. 6C), to the selected word line.
Regarding claim 15: Joo discloses a method of operating a semiconductor device and method of operating (100, FIG. 1), wherein applying the first operating voltage comprises applying the first operating voltage having a positive voltage level (Vpass1 greater than ground voltage, FIG. 6C) to the selected word line.
Regarding claim 16: Joo discloses a method of operating a semiconductor device and method of operating (100, FIG. 1), wherein applying the second operating voltage comprises applying the second operating voltage having a positive voltage level (Vread greater than ground voltage, FIG. 6C) to the selected word line.
Regarding claim 17: Joo discloses a method of operating a semiconductor device and method of operating (100, FIG. 1), wherein applying the ground voltage comprises decreasing the voltage level of the selected word line from the first operating voltage to the ground voltage (decrease from Vpass2 to ground during T4-T5, FIG. 6C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Claims 1-2, and 5-7 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims include allowable subject matter since the prior art made of record andconsidered pertinent to the applicants’ disclosure, taken individually or in combination,does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations having: under-drive operation scheme utilizing a lower operating voltage and a ground voltage via a ground node based on the plurality of states as in claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no laterthan the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferablyaccompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments onStatement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY THINH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6845. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00 ET.
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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at (571)272-1852. 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.
/ANTHONY THINH TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2827
/AMIR ZARABIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights