DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/13/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2-20 of copending Application No. 18/806,865 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons stated below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant claim
‘865 claim
Reasoning
1
2
the’865 claim has all the limitations of instant claim 1 along with the added limitation regarding thicknesses of the active regions, thus the ‘865 anticipates the instant claim.
2
2
See above
3
3
Substantially similar
4
4
Substantially similar
5
5
Substantially similar
6
6
Substantially similar
7
7
anticipated
9
10
anticipated
10
10
anticipated
11
11
anticipated
12
12
the’865 claim has all the limitations of instant claim 12 along with the added limitation regarding thicknesses of the active regions, thus the ‘865 anticipates the instant claim.
13
13
Substantially similar
14
14
Substantially similar
15
15
anticipated
16
16
Substantially similar
17
17
Substantially similar
18
18
the’865 claim has all the limitations of instant claim 18 along with the added limitation regarding thicknesses of the active regions, thus the ‘865 anticipates the instant claim.
19
19
anticipated
20
20
Substantially similar
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are subject to a double patenting (DP) rejection, but would be allowable if the outstanding DP rejection is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the claims listed above in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all of the features in the claims. As to claims 1, 12, and 18, Boemmels (US 202/0135568) teaches a semiconductor memory device (fig. 20) comprising:
a plurality of active regions (170) repeatedly arranged in a first lateral direction (x-axis) and a second lateral direction (y-axis) at a first vertical level apart from a substrate in a vertical direction, the first lateral direction and the second lateral direction being perpendicular to each other, the plurality of active regions including a plurality of first active regions (stack 151) and a plurality of second active regions (stack 152);
a first word line (180 of stack 151) surrounding the plurality of first active regions, the first word line extending lengthwise in the second lateral direction at the first vertical level, the plurality of first active regions being arranged in linearly in the second lateral direction (fig. 20);
a second word line (180 of stack 152) surrounding the plurality of second active regions, the second word line extending lengthwise in the second lateral direction at the first vertical level, the plurality of second active regions being arranged in linearly in the second lateral direction, and the second word line being apart from the first word line in the first lateral direction (fig. 20).
Boemmels does not teach a pair of word line pads on the substrate at the first vertical level, the first word line connected to a first word line pad in the pair of word line pads and the second word line connected to a second word line pad in the pair of word line pads, wherein in a view from above at the first vertical level, the first word line and the second word line are offset from each other in the second lateral direction.
The remaining claims are allowable at least because they depend from allowable independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
8/19/26
Prosecution Insights