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 .
NONFINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action addresses U.S. Patent Application No. 18/886,194, entitled “NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE”, filed September 16, 2024, as a continuation of PCT/JP2023/008037, filed 03/03/2023, and claims priority from JP2022-042611, filed 03/17/2022, filed March 17, 2022.
Claims 1-8 are pending.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The Non-Patent Literature documents cited on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed September 16, 2024 have been lined through.
37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires:
“(i) Each foreign patent;
(ii) Each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed, other than U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications unless required by the Office;
(iii) For each cited pending unpublished U.S. application, the application specification including the claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion; and
(iv) All other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.”
FR 1.98(b)(5) requires:
“Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.”
The citations in the Non-Patent Literature documents section of the IDS do not qualify as publications and/or are not presented in proper form.
In any case, the single reference cited on the International Search Report is included on the attached form PTO-892. A copy of the reference is not being included with this Office action.
DRAWING OBJECTIONS
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because:
Figure 2 is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(l), which states, “Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined.”
In the drawings, all of the lines are sufficiently dense and dark, with the exception of “[A]” and “[V]” in Figure 2, which appear faded.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
SPECIFICATION
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) The abstract is nearly identical to claim 1. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims should be avoided. Note MPEP 608.01(b)(I)(C).
(2) The title of the invention is not descriptive of the claimed invention. For example, the claims are directed to current generation, current mirroring and reading data.
A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
(3) The specification is required to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” However, the present specification includes numerous errors in English idiom.
Some examples of such language of the specification are:
(a) “Some known non-volatile memory devices employ hot carrier injection into transistors. This kind of non-volatile memory device includes as memory elements a first and a second transistor that have paired characteristics in their initial state and the characteristics of one of the transistors are changed by hot carrier injection. After that, in a read operation, based on the magnitude relationship between the drain currents of the first and second transistors as observed when a common gate voltage is fed to them, whether data “0” or data “1” is stored is read out.” ¶ [0003]
(b) “A memory element is an element for which a program operation can be performed by changing the characteristics of a transistor by hot carrier injection and is also called an OTP (one-time programmable) element.” ¶ [0015]
(c) “Here, with respect to a transistor, “structure” is a concept that covers the size of the transistor, and thus, with respect to a given plurality of transistors, their having the same structure means that the sizes of those transistors are also the same. When a plurality of transistors have the same structure, if they have not yet been subjected to hot carrier injection by the program operation, those transistors have the same electrical characteristics (including the gate threshold values and the like). Note however that a given plurality of transistors having the same structure, and the same electrical characteristics means that those are the same in design and allow for errors in reality (i.e., “same” is a concept that allows for errors).” ¶ [0023]
(d) “In a state where the drain currents Ir1 and Ir2 are fed, in a read operation, the sense amplifier SA, based on the magnitude relationship between the drain currents Id1 and Id2 of the data elements Md1 and Md2, outputs an output signal Sout that corresponds to the stored data value (logical value).” ¶ [0027]
(e) “Performing the program operation so as to inject hot carriers into, of the data elements Md1 and Md2 before the program operation is performed, the first data element Md1 results in raising the gate threshold value voltage of the first data element Md1.” ¶ [0028]
(f) “By contrast, performing the program operation so as to inject hot carriers into, of the data elements Md1 and Md2 before the program operation is performed, the second data element Md2 results in raising the gate threshold value voltage of the second data element Md2.” ¶ [0029]
Note that these are just some of examples of many errors. The entire specification should be revised to remove such errors in translation.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informality: in claim 1, “configured to be operable to” is confusing.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
An application may include one or more claim limitations that use the words “means for” and also limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) use(s) a generic placeholder.
Three Prong Analysis
To invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, a claimed phrase must meet the three prong analysis as set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I.
(A) Regarding Prong (A), the MPEP states:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function....
The claim limitations listed below do not use the language "means" or "step". However, each of these may be found to be a generic placeholder.
current mirror
reference element
data element
reference current generator
storage circuit
voltage adder
driving transistor
differential amplifier
switch
Thus, these limitations meet Prong (A) of the analysis.
(B) Regarding Prong (B), the MPEP states:
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by
functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"...
The claim limitations listed below may be modified by functional language, as shown.
current mirror (not modified by functional language)
reference element (“configured as”)
data element (“configured as”)
reference current generator (“configured to”)
storage circuit (“operable to”)
voltage adder (“that adds”)
driving transistor (not modified by functional language)
differential amplifier (not modified by functional language)
switch (not modified by functional language)
Any limitations which have been marked “not modified by functional language” do not meet Prong (B) and will not be further considered in this analysis. All other limitations meet Prong (B) of the analysis and must be considered in the following step.
(C) Regarding Prong (C), the MPEP states:
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
With regard to where the limitations may be found in the disclosure:
reference element (“The data elements Md1 and Md2 and the reference elements Mr1 and Mr2 are both configured as memory elements and are configured, more specifically, as NMOS transistors (N-channel MOSFET (metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors))” ¶ [0015]; “A memory element is an element for which a program operation can be performed by changing the characteristics of a transistor by hot carrier injection and is also called an OTP (one-time programmable) element” ¶ [0015]; this language indicates that the reference elements are transistors, but because of the lack of clarity, the disclosure fails to adequately explain how the structure of a transistor performs the function of “for which a program operation can be performed”)
data element (“The data elements Md1 and Md2 and the reference elements Mr1 and Mr2 are both configured as memory elements and are configured, more specifically, as NMOS transistors (N-channel MOSFET (metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistors))” ¶ [0015]; “A memory element is an element for which a program operation can be performed by changing the characteristics of a transistor by hot carrier injection and is also called an OTP (one-time programmable) element” ¶ [0015]; this language indicates that the data elements are transistors, but because of the lack of clarity, the disclosure fails to adequately explain how the structure of a transistor performs the function of “for being a target of the program operation”)
reference current generator (“the output-side transistor 61 is one example of a reference current generator” ¶ [0055]; there is no further explanation of how the reference current generator performing the function of “operable to generate a reference current”)
storage circuit (see below with regard to circuitry)
voltage adder (“The resistive element R2 is one example of a voltage adder that adds up voltages. The voltage adder is not limited to a resistive element and can be configured with, for example, a MOS transistor” ¶ [0053]; “the first current mirror (8) may have a voltage adder (R2) that adds a voltage to the gate-source voltage of the reference element (81). (A third configuration.) In the third configuration described above, the voltage adder may be a first resistor (R2) connected to the source of the reference element” ¶¶ [0081]-[0082]; this language does explain how the “resistive element” structure performs the claimed function of “adds a voltage”).
Note: With regard to the limitation(s) directed to a “circuit”, the circuitry as claimed, combined with a description of the function of the circuits in the claim itself, provides sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Mass. Inst. of Tech., 462 F.3d at 1355-1356, 80 USPQ2d at 1332 (“circuitry” is generally determined to have sufficient structure).
Thus, the limitations “storage circuit” and “voltage adder” listed above do not meet Prong (C) of the analysis and thus do not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the reference element, the data element and the reference current generator do meet Prong (C) of the analysis and do invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 1st PARAGRAPH
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(1) In claim 1, regarding the claimed “reference element”, because of the lack of clarity, the disclosure fails to adequately explain how the structure of a transistor performs the function of “for which a program operation can be performed”.
(2) In claim 1, regarding the claimed “data element”, because of the lack of clarity, the disclosure fails to adequately explain how the structure of a transistor performs the function of “for being a target of the program operation”.
(3) In claim 1, regarding the claimed “reference current generator”, there is not an adequate explanation of how the reference current generator is performing the function of “operable to generate a reference current”. In other words, the “reference current generator” is mentioned only once (not including the “Notes” section, which is a copy of the claims) with no explanation of the circumstances of current generation.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112, 2nd PARAGRAPH
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 1-8 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.
(1) In claim 1, a “reference element” is “configured as a memory element”, but it is not clear how a “program operation can be performed” for a memory element.
(2) In claim 1, a “reference element” is “configured as a memory element”, but “a data element configured as the memory element” (emphasis added), which creates an unclear antecedent basis and a confusion as to what part is for what.
(3) In claim 1, the “reference element” is a memory element “for which a program operation can be performed” (emphasis added) but a data element is “a target of the program operation” (emphasis added). This is confusing since if the program operation is for the reference element, then it would stand to reason that the reference element is the target.
(4) In claim 1, there is “a first current mirror having” a reference element and a data element, but there is also “a storage circuit having the data element”. Which is it?
(4) In claim 1, the scope of “magnitude relationship” is undefined. The disclosure gives an example: “elements Mr1 and Mr2 have a magnitude relationship such that Id1>Ir1 and Id2>Ir2.” However, this does not explain what is meant by “magnitude relationship”.
(5) In claim 4, it is unclear how a voltage adder can be a resistor. A summing amplifier including resistors would make sense, but applicant has not explained how the single resistor is meant to be used as a voltage adder (cf. “The resistive element R2 is one example of a voltage adder that adds up voltages” ¶ [0053]).
(6) In claim 5, “the reference voltage” has no antecedent basis.
(7) In claim 7, “application terminal” is undefined. From the specification, it seems that an “application terminal” is simply a terminal.
PRIOR ART
WO 2021005956 A1 appears to be particularly relevant to the presented invention.
However, for at least the reasons explained above, the disclosure and claims are indefinite to the extent that they preclude any reasonable search and consideration on the merits of the claimed subject matter.
As an example, the claims and disclosure rely heavily on the “reference element” and “data element”, but fail to explain these limitations in a manner that allows the invention to be compared to prior art non-volatile memory device designs.
Consequently, any rejections based on prior art (e.g., nonstatutory double patenting, 35 U.S.C. §102 or 35 U.S.C. §103) will be held in abeyance until (1) the disclosure is clarified at least to the extent that the subject matter of the claims is properly supported and (2) the claims are rewritten to remove the indefinite language and ambiguous descriptions of the intended subject matter of the invention.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B. James Peikari at telephone number (571)272-4185. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5:30pm, EST.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/B. James Peikari/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992