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 .
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
a. Independent: 1, 13 and 20
b. Pending: 1-20
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 have been amended.
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.
The position taken in the office action mailed on 11/05/2025 is hereby maintained for the revised rationale set forth below. Previously presented rejection is further reinforced in view of the newly discovered references Lee et al. (US 20240221836) and Kim et al. (US 11017853).
Rejections based on the newly cited references follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are submitted on 10/28/2024 and 5/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Memory device and method with multiples stages for read or verify operation.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
All the independent claims 1, 13 and 20 recite “unselect word line”, “unselect row” and so on. Examiner suggests to use “unselected word line”, “unselected row” and so on instead.
Dependent claims also recite similar phrases.
Claims 1-20 are rejected for above reasons.
Device claims 4-5 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 4 depends on claim 2 which in turn depends on claim 1.
Claim 1 already defines that first voltage and second voltage being applied to unselect word line in first phase and second phase of first setup-sense stage respectively.
Later claim 4 states that first voltage being applied to unselect word line in pre-pulse stage which contradicts with claim 1.
Similarly claim 5 contradicts with claim 1 with respect to second voltage.
Method claims 15-16 are rejected for exact same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240221836).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee discloses a memory device (Figs. 1, 4, 7, 8A-8B, 9A, 12, 14-15), comprising:
an array of memory cells (Fig. 4);
word lines respectively coupled to rows of the memory cells (Fig. 4 shows rows of word lines WL1 through WL8 coupled to memory cells); and
a peripheral circuit coupled to the array of memory cells through the word lines and configured to read or verify a select row of the rows of the memory cells (Fig. 1 and [0050] shows the peripheral circuit 20. FIG. 7 and [0070] is a flowchart for a read operation or a verification operation), wherein a read or verify operation of the select row includes a pre-pulse stage, one or more setup-sense stages after the pre-pulse stage, and a post-pulse stage after the one or more setup-sense stages (Figs. 8A, 8B shows various stages. As for example, up to time t12, it is pre-pulse stage. Then from time t12 to t13, t13 to t14, t14 to t15 etc. along with first and second sensing are part of setup sense stages. Lastly WL RCY is post-pulse stage),
wherein to perform the read or verify operation on the select row (Figs. 8A-8B), the peripheral circuit is configured to:
apply a first voltage to an unselect word line coupled to an unselect row of the rows of the memory cells in a first phase of a first setup-sense stage of the one or more setup-sense stages (Figs. 8A, 8B and [0079] describes first pass voltage Vpass1 may be applied to the unselected word lines at time t12); and
apply a second voltage higher than the first voltage to the unselect word line in a second phase after the first phase of the first setup-sense stage (Figs. 8A, 8B and [0083] describes second pass voltage Vpass2 may be applied to the unselected word lines at time t13. Vpass2 is higher than Vpass1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the peripheral circuit is further configured to apply a first read voltage or a first verify voltage to a select word line coupled to the select row of the rows of the memory cells in the first setup-sense stage (Figs. 8A, 8B and [0086] describes that in the first sensing period, the voltage applied to the selected word line may be adjusted to a first read voltage Vread1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the peripheral circuit is further configured to discharge the unselect word line to a third voltage lower than the second voltage in the post-pulse stage after the first setup-sense stage (Figs. 8A-8B shows unselected word line discharged to a voltage level lower than Vpass2 during WL RCY stage).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 6 as above and further the peripheral circuit is further configured to charge the select word line to the third voltage in the post-pulse stage (Figs. 8A-8B shows selected word line finally charged back to the same voltage level as for unselected word lines during WL RCY stage).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the second voltage is higher than a threshold voltage of the memory cells in the select row ([0083] describes that second pass voltage Vpass2 may be 6V, which is higher than threshold voltage of memory cells).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 1 as above and further the unselect word line is separated from a select word line by at least one intervening word line (Fig. 9A shows selected word line as WL5 and WL7 or WL8 as unselected word lines. In that case, WL6 works as an intervening word line).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 10 as above and further the peripheral circuit is further configured to apply a same voltage to another unselect word line coupled to another unselect row of the rows of the memory cells in the first phase and the second phase of the first setup-sense stage, the another unselect word line being immediately adjacent to the select word line (Fig. 9A shows selected word line as WL5 and WL6 as unselected word line).
Independent claim 13 recites same claim limitations as in independent device claim 1, except drafted in method format and henceforth rejected the same way.
Claim 17 recites same limitations of claim 6 but drafted in method format and henceforth rejected the same way.
Claim 18 recites same limitations of claim 7 but drafted in method format and henceforth rejected the same way.
Independent claim 20 recites same claim limitations as in independent device claim 1, except drafted in system level and henceforth rejected the same way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240221836).
Regarding claim 8, it is a repetition of various phases and stages and Fig. 18 along with [0144]-[0148] describes the looping mechanism.
Claim 19 recites same limitations of claim 8 but drafted in method format and henceforth rejected the same way.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 11017853).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses all the elements of claim 10 as above and further the unselect word line comprises a first unselect word line and a second unselect word line (Fig. 9A shows unselected word lines WL7 and WL8);
the second unselect word line is farther away from the select word line than the first unselect word line (Fig. 9A shows WL8 farther away from WL5 (selected word line) than WL7) ; and
Kim teaches the first voltage applied to the first unselect word line is different from the first voltage applied to the second unselect word line in the first setup-sense stage (Fig. 9 and (81) describes a magnitude of the second voltage V2 or V2d to be applied to each of the plurality of first unselected word lines WL_unsel1 may vary depending on a distance from the selected word line WL_sel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to apply the teachings of Kim to Lee in order to provide with memory device capable of improving the reliability of a read operation by decreasing a read error, and an operating method of such a memory device as taught by Kim ((SUMMARY (5)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA BEGUM whose telephone number is (571)431-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Richard Elms can be reached at 571272 1869. 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.
/SULTANA BEGUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights