DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provided two arguments in response to office action. The first argument is dielectric spacers 128 of Tran do not fill "a majority of space between the adjacent gates" as required by claim 1. The second argument is dielectric material 180 does not appear to fill a remaining space on the first dielectric material and between the adjacent gates as required by claim 1.
In response, using terminology such as "majority of space" is considered a term of degree that is not defined with "reasonable certainty". Without a clear definition in the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art might not know whether this means >50%, >60%, or some other threshold. However, on its own, it is subjective as to what constitutes a majority of space. Therefore, since the terminology is not defined, and there is hardly any space between adjacent gates, Examiner concluded dielectric material 128 fills a “majority” of space in Tran.
Further, the terminology "enclosing the first dielectric material... and filling a remaining space" leads to a circular definition, particularly since the "majority" is not precisely defined. If the "first dielectric material" is truly described as "filling a majority" and then the second material fills the "remaining" space, there is no gap left for the second material to occupy, or the boundaries between "majority" and "remaining" are impossible to define definitively. Therefore, since dielectric material 180 occupies the space not filled by dielectric material 128, Examiner concluded dielectric material 180 fills a “remaining space” and “encloses” dielectric material 128 in Tran.
Furthermore, the terminology “enclosing" the first material suggests a completely encapsulated structure. If the first material touches the adjacent gates, the second material cannot fully "enclose" it on all sides. This creates a contradiction between "enclosing" and "between the adjacent gates."
Claim 1 fails to inform a person skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Ideally, the specification should provide specific numerical ranges for the "majority"; clear figures showing that "enclosing" refers only to the exposed surfaces rather than 360-degree encapsulation; and a clear definition of where the "remaining space" begins. However, the claims, specification, and drawings do not clearly describe the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second dielectric material is coplanar with a top of the fin channels and the plurality of gates (new claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings do not show tops of fin channels 208, 302 coplanar with the second dielectric material 312, 522 and the plurality of gates 306, 416. In Figure 4D, second dielectric material 312 appears to be coplanar with only the gate(s) 416. In Figure 5C, second dielectric material 522 appears to be coplanar with only the gate(s) 516.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no description that the second dielectric material is coplanar with a top of the fin channels and the plurality of gates.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0312722 (Lee) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0236869 (Tran).
Lee discloses (Fig. 6)
1. (Previously Presented) A memory device 100, comprising:
a fin channel 112 on a semiconductor substrate 110;
a plurality of gates 130 disposed on the fin channel 112, the plurality of gates 130 separated from the fin channel 112 by one or more gate dielectrics 120; and
an inter-gate dielectric structure 140 / 142 between adjacent gates 130, wherein the inter-gate dielectric structure 140 / 142 includes a first dielectric material 140 (SiN).
Lee fails to disclose
filling a majority of space between the adjacent gates, and a second dielectric material different from the first dielectric material enclosing the first dielectric material between the adjacent gates and filling a remaining space on the first dielectric material and between the adjacent gates.
Tran teaches (Figs. 3a-3j)
A memory device, comprising:
an inter-gate dielectric structure 128 / 180 between adjacent gates 325, wherein the inter-gate dielectric structure 128 / 180 includes a first dielectric material 128 filling a majority of space between the adjacent gates 325, and a second dielectric material 180 different from the first dielectric material 128 ([0030]-[0039]) enclosing the first dielectric material 128 between adjacent gates 325 and filling a remaining space on the first dielectric material 128 and between the adjacent gates 325.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an inter-gate dielectric structure including first and second dielectric materials in Lee. The motivation would be using well-known materials to serve as a first contact level and selecting the material based on routine optimization for a highly compact memory cell and a high density cross-bar memory array configuration to be achieved as taught by Tran ([0064], [0079]). See MPEP 2144.05.
Tran teaches
2. The memory device of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric material 128 and the second dielectric material 180 include different chemistry (different materials).
Tran teaches
3. The memory device of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric material 128 and the second dielectric material 180 include different densities (different materials).
Tran teaches
4. The memory device of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric material 128 includes an oxide, and wherein the second dielectric material 180 includes a nitride ([0030]-[0039]).
Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one dielectric material for the other in Lee based on their suitability for an intended purpose as taught by Tran. See MPEP 2144.06.
Lee discloses
5. (Previously Presented) The memory device of claim 1, wherein the at least one gate dielectric 120 is further layered on sides of the gates 325.
Lee discloses ([0043]-[0045])
7. (Previously Presented) The memory device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of gates 130 include metal gates.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0027261 (Chiang).
The modified device of Lee fails to teach
6. (Previously Presented) The memory device of claim 1, wherein silicon nitride is further layered on sides of the gates over the at least one gate dielectric.
Chiang teaches Figs. 8B, 9A
A memory device, comprising:
wherein silicon nitride 614 is further layered on sides of the gates 500 / 900 over the one or more gate dielectrics 612 ([0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further layer SiN over the gates in Lee. The motivation would be SiN is well-known in the art as taught by Chiang. See MPEP 2144.03.
Claim(s) 21 is/are, to the extent taught and understood rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0175163 (Cartier).
The combination of references fails to teach
21.(New) The memory device of claim 1, wherein the second dielectric material is coplanar with a top of the fin channels and the plurality of gates.
Cartier teaches
A memory device comprising:
wherein dielectric material 13c is coplanar with a top of the fin channel 10 and the gate 16 /17.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coplanar dielectric layer in the modified device of Lee. The motivation would be for self-alignment to define openings precisely and provide electrical isolation as shown in Cartier ([0002], [0026]). Also, to precisely manage the device's electrical characteristics, specifically by controlling the active channel area and reducing unwanted parasitic capacitance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2020/0381531 (Chung), 2018/0076031 (Yan), 2016/0240630 (Seong), 2016/0365440 (Suk), U.S. Patent No. 9,614,040 (Balakrishnan) teach a memory device having a fin channel and multiple dielectric layers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights