Attorney’s Docket Number: 44020051US02
Filing Date: 8/2/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 8/3/2021 (US 63/228,765)
Inventors: Kang et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 6/10/2026.
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 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 amendment filed on 6/10/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 10, mailed on 3/13/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1, 3-12, 14-18 and 20-23.
The amendment is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
The amended specification now specifically states that Fig. 21C illustrates a cross-section of the strapping region. This characterization is not supported by the specification as originally filed. The original disclosure does not identify Fig. 21C as depicting a strapping region, nor does it disclose that the plurality of memory holes shown in Fig. 21C constitute a first plurality of memory holes located in a strapping region that is less dense than the plurality of memory holes in a memory region.
As originally filed, the specification (¶0091) describes Figs. 18A-21C together as showing memory and strapping regions, but does not associate Fig. 21C specifically with the strapping region. Moreover, the original references to Figs. 21A-21C describe those figures as illustrating the strapping contact, including the bit line, bit line contact, and bit line stud (see ¶0095). Of those figures, Fig. 21A is the only one showing strapping line 162, which was clearly described in Figs. 18A, 19A and 20A as being included in the strapping regions shown in those figures. Figs. 21B and 21C, however, differently show memory holes corresponding to the memory holes previously shown and described in reference to Figs. 18B, 19B and 20B as being in the memory regions shown in those figures. None of the figures showing the scrapping regions show any memory holes. Thus, when Fig. 21C is considered in view of the original disclosure as a whole, the original disclosure would not have reasonable conveyed to the skilled artisan that Fig. 21C depicted a strapping region containing memory holes, as now specifically stated in the amended specification. Rather, the original disclosure associates the memory holes shown in the figures with the memory region and provides no disclosure identifying the memory holes in fig. 21C as being located in a strapping region.
The present amendment therefore does more than clarify an existing disclosure. It supplies, for the first time, a specific structural identification of Fig. 21C as a strapping region and thereby supplies factual support for the newly claimed relationship between a plurality of memory holes in the strapping region and a second plurality of memory holes in the memory region. The fact that Fig. 21C may visually depict structures that can, after the fact, be characterized as memory holes in a strapping region does not establish that the original specification disclosed that characterization. New matter cannot be created by assigning a new meaning to an originally disclosed figure through an amendment.
Accordingly, the statement that Fig. 21C shows a cross section of the strapping region constitutes new matter because the originally filed specification, drawings, and their accompanying description would not have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art that Fig. 21C depicted the claimed strapping region. The amendment is therefore objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) and should be removed.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 common source line comprising the sacrificial and polysilicon layers recited in claim 7 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 7 recites a common source line comprising a sacrificial layer and a polysilicon layer. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter in claim 7. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claim 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the strapping region comprises a first plurality of memory holes that is less dense than a second plurality of memory holes in a non-strapping region.” However, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of a strapping region comprising memory holes.
The specification consistently describes and illustrates different structures for the memory region and the strapping region. In particular, the openings in the memory region are described as memory holes 120 in which transistor layers (e.g., layers 128) are subsequently formed. See, e.g., figs. 4-5B.
The specification does not describe or illustrate memory holes formed within the strapping regions (see, e.g., figs. 20A and 21A), nor does it describe the formation of transistor layers within such a region.
The only reference to a strapping region comprising a plurality of memory holes appears as a single statement in paragraph 0050, which recites language substantially identical to that of claim 1. This isolated statement, without supporting description of structure, fabrication, or illustration in the drawings, does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed subject matter, particularly in view of the remainder of the specification which only describes the non-strapping region as comprising the memory holes.
The disclosure of paragraph 0050 appears to merely restate the claim limitation without providing a description of the corresponding structure or process, and therefore does not demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (598 F.3d 1336, Fed. Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for the limitation recited in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, 14-18, 20, 22 and 23 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights