DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 21-46 are pending in this application filed on August 29, 2024
Information Material to Patentability
2. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 46 is 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.
The claim recites the limitation “a second metal pad which extends in the vertical direction and is connected to the memory cell region via the first metal pad and the second metal pad.” It is no clear what it means for the second metal pad to connect to itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (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.
7. Claims 21-23, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US Pat. App. Pub 2020/0357474 (“Yun”) in view of US Pat. App. Pub 2019/0304554 (“Kim”).
8. With respect to claim 21, Yun discloses a non-volatile memory device comprising:
a plurality of word lines (Fig. 3, 137-132) stacked in a vertical direction on a substrate (101);
a plurality of string select lines (138, see also Fig. 2) on the plurality of word lines, the plurality of string select lines being spaced apart from each other in a first horizontal direction and extending in a second horizontal direction, the first and second horizontal directions being parallel with a surface of the substrate, and the second horizontal direction being perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (see Figs. 2 and 3); and
a memory cell array (Fig. 1, 20) comprising a plurality of memory blocks (paragraph [0027], “The plurality of memory cell strings may be divided into a plurality of blocks.”), each of which comprises a plurality of memory cells connected to the plurality of word lines and the plurality of string select lines,
wherein the plurality of string select lines comprise a first string select line, a second string select line and a third string select line which extend in the first horizontal direction (Fig. 2, string lines SSL extend in Y direction) between a first word line cut region (Fig. 3, cut region on the left hand side) and a second word line cut region (cut region on the right hand side), and the second string select line is provided between the first string select line and the third string select line (see Fig. 2, middle SSL is between the left and the right SSLs).
[wherein a program operation on second memory cells connected to a selected word line and the second string select line is performed before program operations on first memory cells connected to the selected word line and the first string select line and third memory cells connected to the selected word line and the third string select line, and
wherein a program order of the plurality of memory cells connected to the selected word line is different from a physical arrangement order of the plurality of string select lines.]
However, Yun does not teach the limitations in square brackets above. On the other hand, Kim discloses a non-volatile memory device wherein a program operation on second memory cells connected to a selected word line and the second string select line is performed before program operations on first memory cells connected to the selected word line and the first string select line and third memory cells connected to the selected word line and the third string select line (Kim, paragraph [0086], “Alternately, in a modifiable embodiment, the second program operation 2nd PGM may also be performed on the memory cell included in the cell strings connected to each string selection line in the order of the fourth string selection line SSL[4], the second string selection line SSL[2], the third string selection line SSL[3], and the first string selection line SSL[1] among the memory cells connected to the first wordline WL[1].”), and
wherein a program order of the plurality of memory cells connected to the selected word line is different from a physical arrangement order of the plurality of string select lines (see paragraph [0086]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Kim’s non-volatile memory programming teachings in the non-volatile memory device of Yun in order to improve data reliability (see Kim, paragraph [0002]).
9. With respect to claim 22, Yun and Kim disclose the non-volatile memory device of claim 21, wherein a program speed for the second memory cells is lower than a program speed for the first memory cells (in paragraph [0024], Yun discloses that “programming speed of the channel adjacent to the worline cut is relatively high, while programming of channel further away from the wordline is relatively low.” Programming speed of the second memory cells connected to the second select string line would be lower that the programming speed of the first memory cells because they are farther away from the cut region on the left).
10. With respect to claim 23, Yun and Kim disclose the non-volatile memory device of claim 22, wherein channel hole sizes of channel structures corresponding to the first memory cells are substantially equal to channel hole sizes of channel structures corresponding to the second memory cells (see Fig, 3, size of the CH holes are about the same).
11. With respect to claim 34, see the rejection of claims 21 and 22 above. Yun discloses 1 string select lines 138 at varying distances from word line cut regions near the left and the right edges of the memory device 100 in Fig. 3.
12. With respect to claim 35, see the rejection of claim 21 above.
13. With respect to claim 36, see the rejection of claim 15 above.
Double Patenting - Statutory
14. A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
15. Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 2 of US Pat. No. 12,100,452 (“the ‘452 patent”). Claim 21 claims the same invention as claim 2 of the ‘452 patent.
Double Patenting – Non-Statutory
16. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
17. Claims 22-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-13 and 21of the ‘452 patent.
Claims 22-33 are nearly identical to claims 3-14 of the ‘452 patent, with the exception that the independent claim 21, from which claims 22-23 depend, includes the limitation of claim 2 of the ‘452 patent. Thus, claims 22-23 are obvious combinations/variations of claim 2-13 of the ‘452 patent.
18. Claims 34-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 2-33 of the ‘452 patent in view Yun and Kim.
Claim 21 of the ‘452 patent claims all of the limitations of claim 34 with the exception of the limitations “wherein a programming operation on second memory cells connected to a selected word line is and the second string select line is performed before a program operation on first memory cells connected to the selected word line and the first string select line, and wherein a programming speed of the second memory cells is lower than a programming speed for the first memory cells.” On the other hand, Yun and Kim discloses these limitations as discussed above in the rejection of claim 21. It would have been obvious to use Kim’s teaching of programming sequencing for the reason discussed above. Note that the programming speed limitation is also claimed in claim 4 of the ‘452 patent. Dependent claims 35-45 are claimed in claim 2-33 of the ‘452 patent.
Claims 22-33 are nearly identical to claims 3-14 of the ‘452 patent, with the exception that the independent claim 21, from which claims 22-23 depend, includes the limitation of claim 2 of the ‘452 patent. Thus, claims 22-23 are obvious combinations/variations of claim 2-13 of the ‘452 patent.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Woo H Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-4179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 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, Hetul Patel can be reached on (571) 272-4184. 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.
/Woo H Choi/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3992