DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 03/14/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 3-10, 18, 22-29. Claims 2, 11-17, and 19-21 are cancelled by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0182776) in view of Park (US 11145669) and further in view of Son (US 2018/0019257).
Regarding claim 1, Kim (see, figs. 3 and 4) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device, comprising:
A stack of word line layers 315 and insulating layers 115 alternatingly arranged along a vertical direction 1st direction perpendicular to a substrate 100
A first channel structure 190 (160/170/180) and 200 extending along a first vertical axis 1st direction in the vertical direction 1st direction through the word line layers 315 and the insulating 115 layers
The first channel structure 190/200 including a first plurality of storage structures 140 and a first isolation structure 210/240
The first storage structure 140 being arranged around the first isolation structure 210/240
The first isolation structure 210/240 separating the first storage structures 140 from one another
Gate insulating layers 160/170/180 of two adjacent first storage structures 140 being split from each other
Kim fails (see, figs. 3 and 4) to shows that a cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction has one of a circular profile or an oval profile. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the first isolation structure with a circular profile or oval profile, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the first isolation structure 210/240 disclosed by Kim as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed circular profile of the first isolation structure is known in the art: Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, fig. 4) that the shape of the first isolation structure 75 can be of circular profile.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of circular profile in the structure of Kim, because the first isolation structure is known in the semiconductor art to have circular profile for its use as isolation structure similarly used for in instant invention and Park, as suggested by Park, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kim fails (see, figs. 3 and 4) to shows that a cross-section of each storage structure 140 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction has a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having each storage structure with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the storage structure 140 disclosed by Kim as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular top side and two opposing parallel edge sides claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed storage structure with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides is known in the art: Son, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, fig. 3A) that the shape of the storage structure VS can be with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides in the structure of Kim, because the storage structure is known in the semiconductor art to have a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides for its use as storage structure similarly used for in instant invention and Son, as suggested by Son, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Kim shows (see, figs. 3 and 4) that a first storage structure of the storage structures comprises:
A barrier layer 160
A charge trapping layer 170
A tunneling layer 180
A channel layer 200
The layers are concentrically arranged along the first vertical axis 1st direction in the first channel structure 190 (see, e.g., fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) that
The barrier layer 160 is formed along the vertical direction 1st direction and in contact with the word line 315 and insulating 115 layers
The charge trapping layer 170 is formed over the inner surface of the barrier layer 160 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
The tunneling layer 180 is formed over an inner surface of the charge trapping layer 170 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
The channel layer 200 is formed over an inner surface of the tunneling layer 180 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) that the first storage structures 140 has three storage structures spaced that are equally spaced apart from one another around the first isolation structure 210/240.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) the first storage structures 140 has three storage structures spaced that are unequally spaced apart from one another around the first isolation structure 210/240.
Claims 5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Park/Son in view of Yabuki (US 11594551).
Regarding claim 5, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Kim shows that the cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 has a certain shape, centered at the interception point between the cross-section of the isolation structure and its vertical axis 1st direction. Park also teaches (see, fig. 4) that the shape of the first isolation structure 75 can be of circular profile.
Park fails to specify the radius of the first isolation structure 75 (see, e.g., fig. 4). However, differences in radius values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such radius values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim/Park, teaches (see, e.g., figs. 28A-C) that the radius of the isolation structure would define the cross-sectional dimensions of the memory strings or designed requirements. Yabuki further teaches that the radius may be adjusted or tuned depending on the number of the storage channels arranged around the isolation structure (see, e.g., figs. 28A-C).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the radius of the first isolation structure and Yabuki has identified such radius as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kim/Park.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed radius values or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above), comprising a second channel structure 190/200 that includes a second plurality of storage structures 140 and a second isolation structure 210/240 wherein:
The second channel structure 190/200 extends along a second vertical axis 1st direction in the vertical direction
The second storage structures 140 of the second channel structure 190/200 are arranged around the second isolation structure 210/240
The second isolation structure 210/240 separates the storage structures 140 of the second channel structure 190/200 from one another
The second channel structure 190/200 is positioned at the first side of the first channel structure 190/200 and have an opposition orientation to an orientation of the first channel structure 190/200
Kim fails to specify the space between the first channel structure 190/200 and the second channel structure 190/200 (see, e.g., fig. 1). However, differences in space dimension between the channel structures will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such space values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 28A-C) that the space values between the first channel structure and the second channel structure would define the degree of integration and cost (see, e.g., col.14/II.17-19). Yabuki further teaches that the distance between the first and second channel structures may be adjusted or tuned depending on memory cells density per unit area (see, e.g., fig. 34A).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the space between the first and second channel structures, and Yabuki has identified such space as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these space value in the device of Kim.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above), comprising a third channel structure 190/200 that includes a plurality of storage structures 140 and a third isolation structure 210/240, wherein:
The third channel structure 190/200 extends along a third vertical axis 1st direction in the vertical direction
The third storage structures 140 of the third channel structure 190/200 are arranged around the third isolation structure 210/240
The third isolation structure 210/240 separates the third storage structures 140 of the third channel structure 190/200 from one another
The third channel structure 190/200 is positioned at the second side of the first channel structure 190/200 and have a same orientation to the orientation of the first channel structure 190/200
Kim fails to specify the space between the first channel structure 190/200 and the third channel structure 190/200 (see, e.g., fig. 1). However, differences in the space dimension between the channel structures will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such space values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 28A-C) that the space values between the first and third channel structures would define the degree of integration and cost (see, e.g., col.14/II.17-19). Yabuki further teaches that the space values between the channel structures may be adjusted or tuned depending on memory cells density per unit area (see, e.g., fig. 34A).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the space between the first and third channel structures and Yabuki has identified such space as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed values in the device of Kim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Park/Son/Yabuki in view of Geng (US 2022/0013536).
Regarding claim 8, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 6 above). Kim shows that the cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 has a certain shape, centered at the interception point between the cross-section of the isolation structure and its vertical axis 1st direction. Park also teaches (see, fig. 4) that the shape of the first isolation structure 75 can be of circular profile. Son teaches (see, fig. 3A) that the shape of the storage structure VS can be with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides.
Kim/Park/Son fail to specify the first distance between the vertical axis and the top side, the second distance between the two-opposing edge sides, and the dimension of the cross-section of the first channel structure (see, e.g., Kim: figs. 3, and 4). However, differences in the values of first distance, second distance, and respectively the cross-sectional dimension of the first channel will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such radius values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Geng, in a similar device to Kim/Park/Son, teaches (see, e.g., Geng: fig. 2) that the shape structure would define the memory cell density and is based on designed requirements. Geng further teaches that the first distance, second distance, and the cross-sectional dimensional of the first channel may be adjusted or tuned to increase the memory cell density per unit area in the same plane (see, e.g., Geng: par. [0032]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the first distance, second distance, and the cross-sectional dimension of the first channel structure and Geng has identified such dimensions as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these dimensions in the device of Kim/Park/Son.
Claims 18, 22-23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2018/0182776) in view of Park (US 11145669) in view of Son (US 2018/0019257) and in further view of Shin (US 10566338).
Regarding claim 18, Kim (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a memory system, comprising a three-dimensional (3D) memory device, comprising:
A stack of word line layers 315 and insulating layers 115 alternatingly positioned over a substrate 100 in a vertical direction 1st direction
A first channel structure 190/200 and 110 extending along a first vertical direction 1st direction through the word 315 and insulating 115 layers
A first channel structure 190/200 and 110 including a plurality of storage structures 140 and a first isolation structure 210/240
The first storage structures 140 being arranged around the first isolation structure 210/240
The first isolation structure 210/240 separates the first storage structures 140
Gate insulating layers 160/170/180 of two adjacent first storage structures140 being split from each other
Kim fails (see, figs. 3 and 4) to shows that a cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction has one of a circular profile or an oval profile. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the first isolation structure with a circular profile or oval profile, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the first isolation structure 210/240 disclosed by Kim as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular circular profile or oval profile claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed circular profile of the first isolation structure is known in the art: Park, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, fig. 4) that the shape of the first isolation structure 75 can be of circular profile.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of circular profile in the structure of Kim, because the first isolation structure is known in the semiconductor art to have circular profile for its use as isolation structure similarly used for in instant invention and Park, as suggested by Pak, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kim fails (see, figs. 3 and 4) to shows that a cross-section of each storage structure 140 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction has a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides. However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having each storage structure with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the storage structure 140 disclosed by Kim as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular top side and two opposing parallel edge sides claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed storage structure with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides is known in the art: Son, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, fig. 3A) that the shape of the storage structure VS can be with a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides in the structure of Kim, because the storage structure is known in the semiconductor art to have a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides for its use as storage structure similarly used for in instant invention and Son, as suggested by Son, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kim, however, fails to show an array region and a staircase region. Also, Kim fails to teach word line contacts formed in the staircase region. Shin (see, e.g., fig. 4), in a similar device to Kim, discloses an array region CAR and a staircase region CNR that are positioned adjacent each other and formed in a stack of alternating word line layers ELb and insulating layers ILD that is positioned over a substrate 10 of the semiconductor device in a vertical direction. Shin also teaches word line contacts CPLG formed in the staircase region CNR, where the word line contacts CPLG extend from the word line layers ELb of the staircase region CNR along the vertical direction. Shin teaches that doing so would increase the storage cell density in highly-reliable and high-density memory cells (see, e.g., col.21/II.7-9).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an array region and a staircase region with word line contacts in order to have a plurality of vertically-stacked memory cells and a plurality of word and bit lines which are electrically connected to the memory cells as suggested by Shin in the semiconductor device of Kim to increase the storage cell density.
Regarding claim 22, Kim shows (see, figs. 3 and 4) that each of first storage structures of the 3D memory device comprises:
A barrier layer 160
A charge trapping layer 170
A tunneling layer 180
A channel layer 200
The layers are concentrically arranged along the first vertical axis 1st direction in the first channel structure 190 (see, e.g., fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) that
The barrier layer 160 is formed along the vertical direction 1st direction and in contact with the word line 315 and insulating 115 layers
The charge trapping layer 170 is formed over the inner surface of the barrier layer 160 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
The tunneling layer 180 is formed over an inner surface of the charge trapping layer 170 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
The channel layer 200 is formed over an inner surface of the tunneling layer 180 and extends in the vertical direction 1st direction
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) that the first storage structures 140 has three storage structures spaced that are equally spaced apart from one another around the first isolation structure 210/240.
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) the first storage structures 140 has three storage structures spaced that are unequally spaced apart from one another around the first isolation structure 210/240.
Claims 24, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Park/Son/Shin in view of Yabuki (US 11594551).
Regarding claim 24, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 3 and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 40 above). Kim shows that the cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 has a circular shape, centered at the interception point between the cross-section of the isolation structure and its vertical axis 1st direction.
Kim fails to specify the radius of the first isolation structure 210/240 (see, e.g., 3 and 4). However, differences in radius values will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such radius values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., figs. 28A-C) that the radius of the isolation structure would define the cross-sectional dimensions of the memory strings or designed requirements. Yabuki further teaches that the radius may be adjusted or tuned depending on the number of the storage channels arranged around the isolation structure (see, e.g., figs. 28A-C).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the radius of the first isolation structure and Yabuki has identified such radius as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Kim.
Regarding claim 28, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 40 above), comprising a second channel structure 190/200 that includes a second plurality of storage structures 140 and a second isolation structure 210/240 wherein:
The second channel structure 190/200 extends along a second vertical axis 1st direction in the vertical direction
The second storage structures 140 of the second channel structure 190/200 are arranged around the second isolation structure 210/240
The second isolation structure 210/240 separates the storage structures 140 of the second channel structure 190/200 from one another
The second channel structure 190/200 is positioned at the first side of the first channel structure 190/200 and have an opposition orientation to an orientation of the first channel structure 190/200
Kim fails to specify the space between the first channel structure 190/200 and the second channel structure 190/200 (see, e.g., fig. 1). However, differences in space dimension between the channel structures will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such space values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 28A-C) that the space values between the first channel structure and the second channel structure would define the degree of integration and cost (see, e.g., col.14/II.17-19). Yabuki further teaches that the distance between the first and second channel structures may be adjusted or tuned depending on memory cells density per unit area (see, e.g., fig. 34A).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the space between the first and second channel structures, and Yabuki has identified such space as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these space value in the device of Kim.
Regarding claim 29, Kim teaches (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 40 above), comprising a third channel structure 190/200 that includes a plurality of storage structures 140 and a third isolation structure 210/240, wherein:
The third channel structure 190/200 extends along a third vertical axis 1st direction in the vertical direction
The third storage structures 140 of the third channel structure 190/200 are arranged around the third isolation structure 210/240
The third isolation structure 210/240 separates the third storage structures 140 of the third channel structure 190/200 from one another
The third channel structure 190/200 is positioned at the second side of the first channel structure 190/200 and have a same orientation to the orientation of the first channel structure 190/200
Kim fails to specify the space between the first channel structure 190/200 and the third channel structure 190/200 (see, e.g., fig. 1). However, differences in the space dimension between the channel structures will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such space values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Yabuki, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., fig. 28A-C) that the space values between the first and third channel structures would define the degree of integration and cost (see, e.g., col.14/II.17-19). Yabuki further teaches that the space values between the channel structures may be adjusted or tuned depending on memory cells density per unit area (see, e.g., fig. 34A).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the space between the first and third channel structures and Yabuki has identified such space as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed values in the device of Kim.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim/Park/Son/Shin/Yabuki and in further view of Geng (US 2022/0013536).
Regarding claim 27, Kim shows (see, e.g., figs. 1, 3, and 4) the most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 40 above). Kim shows that the cross-section of the storage structure of the three storage structures (that is perpendicular to the vertical axis 1st direction) includes a top side and two opposing edge sides.
Kim fails to specify the first distance between the vertical axis and the top side, the second distance between the two-opposing edge sides, and the dimension of the cross-section of the first channel structure (see, e.g., fig. 3, and 4). However, differences in the values of first distance, second distance, and respectively the cross-sectional dimension of the first channel will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such radius values are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Geng, in a similar device to Kim, teaches (see, e.g., Geng: fig. 2) that the shape structure would define the memory cell density and is based on designed requirements. Geng further teaches that the first distance, second distance, and the cross-sectional dimensional of the first channel may be adjusted or tuned to increase the memory cell density per unit area in the same plane (see, e.g., Geng: par. [0032]).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 25) of the first distance, second distance, and the cross-sectional dimension of the first channel structure and Geng has identified such dimensions as result-effective variable subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these dimensions in the device of Kim.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments, and finds them to be unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. Examiner believers that the Kim reference also discloses the amended limitations. The applicability of the Kim reference to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections above.
The applicants argue:
Kim fails to disclose or otherwise render obvious that "a cross-section of the first isolation structure that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis has one of a circular profile or an oval profile", as now recited in claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, see, e.g., fig. 4, where Kim clearly shows a cross-section of the first isolation structure 210/240 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction. Also, in the new grounds of rejection of Kim in combination with Park, in light of that combination of references, since Park teaches (see, e.g., fig. 4) a cross-section of the first isolation structure 75 that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis 1st direction, Park also teaches that that the first isolation structure has one of circular profile or an oval profile. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of circular profile in the structure of Kim, because the first isolation structure is known in the semiconductor art to have circular profile for its use as isolation structure similarly used for in instant invention and Park, as suggested by Park, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, the combination of references clearly teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above.
The applicants argue:
Kim fails to disclose or otherwise render obvious that "a cross-section of each storage structure that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis has a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides," as now recited in claim 1.
The examiner responds:
In view of the new grounds of rejection, Kim is in the combination with Son. In light of that combination of references, Son teaches (see, e.g., fig. 12) a cross-section of each storage structure VS that is perpendicular to the first vertical axis has a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the shape of a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides in the structure of Kim, because the storage structure is known in the semiconductor art to have a top side and two opposing parallel edge sides for its use as storage structure similarly used for in instant invention and Son, as suggested by Son, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Therefore, the combination of references clearly teaches the claimed subject matter as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA and between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights