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 .
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/9/2026.
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. Applicants have confirmed that the proposed amendments in the interview were not filed instead filing the original claims in the previous Office action.
Response to Double Patenting Arguments
4. Applicant’s request for reconsideration and removal of the obviousness type double patenting rejection set forth in the last Office action is not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks “The cited claims of the '022 application do not disclose the specific structural/layout constraints and decoder/CSL couplings recited in the pending claims. For example, independent claims 1, 15, and 19 specifically recites that "among the plurality of wordlines, every r-th wordline in the column direction is allocated for metadata." By contrast, '022 claim 15 does not include any requirement of a periodic "every r-th wordline" allocation. However, the claimed language does not disclose the specific structural/layout constraints and decoder/CSL couplings and does not include any requirement of a periodic "every r-th wordline" allocation. Claims 1-3 of the ‘022 disclose each of the first and second sub-banks is connected top column select lines and wherein the first sub-bank is configured to store normal data and is connected to a plurality of first wordlines, wherein the second sub-bank is configured to store metadata corresponding to the normal data and is connected to a plurality of second wordlines.
Therefore, the claims as originally presented would have subjected to obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of the ‘022 application as indicated in the outstanding Office Action.
5. Applicant's arguments with respect to the remarks have been considered but have not been found persuasive. Therefore, all claims that are still rejected for the same reason as set forth in the previous Office action that are provided below for your convenience
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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)(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.
8. Claims 1-2, 8-10, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et al. US Pub. No. 20230205440.
As per claims 1, 15 and 19-20, Figs. 3 and 8 of Jo are directed to a memory device comprising: a subbank (DS1, par. 124, Fig. 8) divided in a row direction and comprising a plurality of subsets (DBK and MBK, par. 124, Fig. 8) each divided in the row direction (WL, Fig. 3); a plurality of wordlines extending in the row direction and connected to the subbank, wherein among the plurality of wordlines (all word lines WLs in a memory device, par. 55), every r-th wordline (wordlines include in each block of metadata blocks MDs, Fig.1 or 7) in a column direction is allocated for metadata, where r is a positive integer; and a plurality of column select line (CSL) (from 126, par. 58, Fig. 3) subsets extending in the column direction and connected to the subbank.
It is noted that the limitation “every r-th wordline in a column direction is allocated for metadata, where r is a positive integer” would be rejected under 103 rejection in view of Fig. 10A and a paragraph 58 of Givant et al. US Pub. No. 20240296115 by disclosed “each erase sector may have 16 wordlines where a first wordline is reserved for metadata, and the remaining wordlines are used for special data”. Also see a rejection of claim 11 under 103 rejection by Givant below too.
As per claims 2 and 16, Fig. 1 or 8 of Jo discloses wherein the first bank comprises a first subbank (DBK) and a second subbank (MBK) divided in a row direction (Fig. 1), and the first subbank is connected to a plurality of first wordlines among the plurality of wordlines, and the second subbank is connected to a plurality of second wordlines among the plurality of wordlines.
As per claims 8-10, Fig. 8 of Jo discloses further comprising: a first row decoder (in 111-1) configured to select one of the plurality of first wordlines, and a first column decoder (in 111-1)configured to select a first CSL subset among the plurality of CSLs; and a second row decoder (in 111-2) configured to select one of the plurality of second wordlines, and a second column decoder (in 111-2) configured to select a first CSL subset among the plurality of CSLs. Also see Fig. 3 of Jo for a row decoder (12) and a column decoder (126)
As per claim 14, Fig. 3 of Jo discloses wherein the first bank is connected to a plurality of global input/output (GIO) lines (DLs, par. 59), and the memory device further comprises a second bank (in 124) adjacent to the first bank and disposed in the column direction of the first bank and configured to share the plurality of GIO lines with the first bank. Also see the output from 208 connecting to 270 of Kim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 3-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jo et al. US Pub. No. 20230205440 in view of Kim et al. US Pub. No. 20230205428.
Jo fails to disclose the limitations in a claim 3. However, Fig. 4 of Kim discloses the limitations of the claim 3 wherein among the plurality of first wordlines (among WL1 to WLn), every r-th first wordline in the column direction is allocated for metadata for the second subbank (420) , and among the plurality of second wordlines (among WL1 to WLn), every r-th second wordline in the column direction is allocated for metadata for the first subbank (410). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify Jo’s memory device which utilizes to allocate metadata as taught by Kim in order to have metadata in the first and second subbanks. See a column select signals CSLs in the paragraphs. 39 and 40 for claim 5.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jo et al. US Pub. No. 20230205440 in view of Givant et al. US Pub. No. 20240296115.
Jo fails to disclose the limitations in a claim 11. However, Fig. 7 and a paragraph 58 of Givant disclose the limitations of the claim 11 wherein r is 8 or 16 (first wordline of 16 wordlines reserved for metadata, par. 58). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to modify Jo’ memory device which utilizes the r-th wordline among the wordlines as taught by Givant in order to have a r-th wordline in a group of wordlines reserved for metadata, and the remaining wordlines are used for special data (par. 58).
Allowable Subject matter
12. Claims 12-13 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.
13. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See a previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
14. Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is improper.” The examiner respectfully agrees with this statement, however, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is proper. See the item 6 above for the reason to change to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained. Feature of an invention not found in the claims can be given no patentable weight in distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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.
15. When responding to the office action, Applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner to locate the appropriate paragraphs.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1777. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM -- 5:30 PM from Thursday and Friday of the first week of a bi-week and Tuesday and Wednesday of the second week.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Zarabian can be reached on (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 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).
/HOAI V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827
Prosecution Insights