DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions - NO TRAVERSE
A restriction requirement was mailed on 10/22/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 12/9/25 is acknowledged. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 3 is objected to because “wherein first material layer” should be amended to “wherein the first material layer” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the memory stack comprises a sacrificial layer, and alternating layers of a first material layer, a second material layer, and the semiconductor material layer.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the geometry required by the claimed limitation is unclear. Referring to the disclosed element numbers, the memory stack is 106, the first material layer is 108, the second material layer is 110, and the semiconductor material layer is 105. See e.g. Fig. 2A. As disclosed, the memory stack 106 comprises, from bottom to top, first material layer 108, second material layer 110, first material layer 108, semiconductor layer 105, first material layer 108, and second material layer 110, according to the labeling and assuming that identical cross-hatching refers to identical layers. The disclosed sequence is 108/110/108/105/108/110, whereas the claim requires at least 108/110/105/108/110/105, wherein 108/110/105 needs to alternate (repeat at least twice in that order). Because the disclosed invention does not match the plain meaning of “alternating”, the number of first material layers, the number of second material layers, and the number of semiconductor material layers are unclear, and it is unclear what geometry the various layers must have.
PNG
media_image1.png
454
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein [the] first material layer and the second material layer independently comprise an insulating material.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear what “independently” refers to in this context. The claim requires the composition of the first or second material layers to be “independent” from something, but it is unclear what thing the “something” is. It is further unclear if the limitation requires the first and second material layers to both comprise a same insulating material; if it requires both of the first and second material layers to each comprise an insulating material, but they could comprise different insulating materials; if it requires only one of the first and second material layers to comprise an insulating material, such that the other may comprise a non-insulating material.
Claims 4-5 depend from claim 3 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0013210 A1 (“Lee”).
Lee teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
551
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches:
1. A method of forming a memory device, the method comprising:
forming a metal silicide layer (e.g. 154, see e.g. para 149 and Fig. 39) on a semiconductor material layer (e.g. directly on 119, which is a doped polysilicon source/drain region of a semiconductor layer, see e.g. para 59, 99, etc.) on a memory stack (see e.g. para 35, 41, etc.),
the semiconductor material layer having a capacitor side (e.g. side thereof closer to the capacitor) and a bit line side (e.g. side thereof closer to the bit line);
forming a capacitor (e.g. comprising 114, 113, and 112, see e.g. para 55 and Fig. 39) on the capacitor side of the metal silicide layer; and
forming a bit line (e.g. 120 or 120’, see e.g. para 150 and Fig. 39) on the bit line side of the metal silicide layer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the memory stack comprises a sacrificial layer (e.g. etch stop layer 101, see e.g. Fig. 3), and alternating layers of a first material layer, a second material layer, and the semiconductor material layer (see e.g. 102, 103, and 104, see e.g. para 4 and Fig. 3).
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first material layer and the second material layer independently comprise an insulating material (102 may comprises e.g. SiN; 103 may comprise e.g. SiO2, see e.g. para 65).
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first material layer comprises a nitride layer and the second material layer comprises an oxide layer (102 may comprises e.g. SiN; 103 may comprise e.g. SiO2, see e.g. para 65).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the first material layer comprises silicon nitride and the second material layer comprises silicon oxide (102 may comprises e.g. SiN; 103 may comprise e.g. SiO2, see e.g. para 65).
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material layer comprises poly-silicon (104 may comprise polysilicon, see e.g. para 65).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein forming the capacitor comprises depositing one or more of a lower electrode, a high-K dielectric layer, a top electrode, and a silicon germanium (SiGe) layer (the capacitor may comprise storage node (electrode) 114, dielectric layer 113, and plate node (electrode) 112, and 113 may be a high-k dielectric according to para 86; see e.g. para 55 and Fig. 39).
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 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2021/0104527 A1 (“Son”).
Lee teaches claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the metal silicide layer comprises a metal selected from one or more of titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), ruthenium (Ru), iridium (Ir), and molybdenum (Mo).
Son teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Lee wherein the metal silicide layer comprises a metal selected from one or more of titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), ruthenium (Ru), iridium (Ir), and molybdenum (Mo) (see e.g. para 34, wherein bitlines may be made from metal-semiconductor compounds such as tungsten silicide, cobalt silicide, or titanium silicide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Son, including the use of tungsten silicide or titanium silicide as a suitable alternative to cobalt silicide in applications of the lines of DRAM devices, to the invention of Lee. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using one of multiple known metal silicide materials as the material of Lee’s silicide layer 154. Lee only disclosed CoSi, but it is well known in the art as evidenced by Son, that other metal silicides such as WSi and TiSi, are equally appropriate.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896