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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s reply filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered and considered. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot. Thus, this rejection is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al (US 2021/0183882 A1; hereafter ZHANG) in view of Greenlee et al (US 2023/0290721; hereafter Greenlee).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. ZHANG discloses a three-dimensional memory device (Fig. [14D], Para [ 0140] discloses” a three-dimensional memory device which includes an alternating stack of insulating layers 32 and electrically conductive layers 46”), comprising:
an alternating stack of insulating layers and electrically conductive layers (Fig. [14D], Para [ 0140], alternating stack of insulating layers 32 and electrically conductive layers 46”);
memory openings vertically (Fig. [14D], Para [ 0140], memory stack structures 55) extending through the alternating stack (Fig. [14D], Para [ 0140] discloses” alternating stack of insulating layers 32 and electrically conductive layers 46”); and
memory opening fill structures located within the memory openings (Para [ 0140]), wherein:
each of the memory opening fill structures (Fig. [14D], memory stack structures 55) comprises a respective vertical semiconductor channel (Fig. [14D], vertical semiconductor channel 60, Para [ 0104]) and a respective vertical stack of memory elements ( Fig. [14D], memory film 50, Para [ 0104]), and each of the electrically conductive layers (Fig. [14D], electrically conductive layers 46) comprise a layer (Fig. [14D], conductive material 47, Para [0143]) and a plurality of conductive capping material portions ( Fig. [14D], conductive material portion [48] ,Para [ 0143]) which comprise a material other than molybdenum ( Fig. [14D], conductive material portion [48] ,Para [ 0143]) and which are in contact with an outer sidewall of a respective one of the memory opening fill structures (Fig. [14D], Para [ 0140], memory stack structures 55).
But ZHANG does not disclose explicitly conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer and each of the conductive capping material portions comprises a respective outer sidewall that contacts the molybdenum layer and that is located within a respective vertical plane including a respective set of vertical interfaces between the insulating layers and the respective one of the memory opening fill structures.
In a similar field of endeavor, Greenlee discloses conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer ( Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020]) and each of the conductive capping material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]) portions comprises a respective outer sidewall that contacts the molybdenum layer ( Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020]) and that is located within a respective vertical plane including a respective set of vertical interfaces between the insulating layers ( insulating materials 24, Para [ 0020]) and the respective one of the memory opening fill structures ( trench 40, Para [ 0024]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer ( Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020]) and each of the conductive capping material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]) portions comprises a respective outer sidewall that contacts the molybdenum layer ( Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020]) and that is located within a respective vertical plane including a respective set of vertical interfaces between the insulating layers ( insulating materials 24, Para [ 0020]) and the respective one of the memory opening fill structures ( trench 40, Para [ 0024])” for further advantage such as memory array of memory cells in an effectively to improve device performance of three dimensional memory device.
Regarding claim 2. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 1, Greenlee further discloses wherein the conductive capping material portions comprise a conductive metal-containing compound material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “wherein the conductive capping material portions comprise a conductive metal-containing compound material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three- dimensional memory device by using well-known materials.
Regarding claim 3. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 2, Greenlee further discloses wherein the conductive metal- containing compound material comprises a conductive metal oxide material or a conductive metal nitride material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “wherein the conductive metal- containing compound material comprises a conductive metal oxide material or a conductive metal nitride material (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three- dimensional memory device by using well-known materials. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Regarding claim 5. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 1, Greenlee further discloses wherein the conductive capping material portions consist essentially of an elemental metal (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “wherein the conductive capping material portions consist essentially of an elemental metal (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three-dimensional memory device by using well-known materials. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Regarding claim 6. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 5, Greenlee further discloses wherein the conductive capping material portions consist essentially of tungsten or ruthenium (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “wherein the conductive capping material portions consist essentially of tungsten or ruthenium (Fig 8, conductive material 77, Para [ 0020])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three- dimensional memory device by using well-known materials. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Regarding claim 7. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 1, ZHANG further discloses wherein each of the layers (conductive layers 48) is in contact with a respective underlying insulating layer and a respective overlying insulating layer of the insulating layers in the alternating stack (Fig. [14D], an alternating stack of insulating layers 32 and electrically conductive layers 46”).
But ZHANG does not disclose explicitly first conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Greenlee discloses first conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer (Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG in light of Greenlee teaching “first conductive material comprise a molybdenum layer (Fig 8, molybdenum-containing metal material 48, Para [ 0020])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three dimensional memory device by using well-known materials. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al (US 2021/0183882 A1; hereafter ZHANG) in view of Greenlee et al (US 2023/0290721; hereafter Greenlee) as applied claims above and further in view of Sharangpani et al (US 2018/0090373 A1; hereafter Sharangpani’373).
Regarding claim 4. ZHANG in light of Greenlee discloses the three-dimensional memory device of Claim 2, ZHANG further discloses wherein the conductive capping material portions comprise a conductive metal-containing compound material (Fig. [14D], second conductive material portion [46A, 47] comprises a metallic nitride, tungsten, or cobalt, such as titanium nitride, Para [ 0143]).
But ZHANG in light of Greenlee does not disclose explicitly wherein the conductive metal- containing compound material is selected from ruthenium oxide or tungsten nitride.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sharangpani’373 discloses wherein the conductive metal- containing compound material is selected from ruthenium oxide or tungsten nitride (Para [ 0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine ZHANG and Greenlee in light of Sharangpani’373 teaching “wherein the conductive metal- containing compound material is selected from ruthenium oxide or tungsten nitride (Para [ 0101])” for further advantage such as to improve device performance of three-dimensional memory device by using well-known materials. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 21-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 11. wherein: the alternating stack is located over a top surface of a substrate; each of the memory opening fill structures comprises a respective memory film that vertically extends from a topmost layer within the alternating stack to a bottommost layer within the alternating stack; and each of the memory elements of the respective vertical stack of memory elements comprises a respective portion of the respective memory film located at a same vertical distance from the top surface of the substrate as a respective one of the electrically conductive layers.
Claims 12- 13 is objected based on the dependency of claim 11.
Regarding claim 21. wherein each of the plurality of conductive capping material portions comprises a respective inner sidewall that laterally protrudes inward relative to the respective vertical plane and in direct contact with the respective one of the memory opening fill structures.
Claim 22 is objected based on the dependency of claim 21.
Conclusion
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 MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898