DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP § 608.01(m) and 37 CRF 1.75(i) Appropriate 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-15 and 19 are 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 support in the specification for the claim limitations of "the tunneling layer includes at least a first layer and a second layer", as recited in claim 1; the tunneling layer includes at least two separate layers”, as recited in claim 11 (note: [0128] discloses that the tunneling layer including a first region …, and a second region …).
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.
Claims 2-5 and 14 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.
The claimed limitation of "a first layer", as recited in claims 2 and 14, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a first layer", as recited in claim 1 and “at least two separate layers”, as recited in claim 11, respectively.
The claimed limitation of "a second layer", as recited in claims 2 and 14, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a second layer", as recited in claim 1 and “at least two separate layers”, as recited in claim 11, respectively.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the first and second layer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a first layer” and/or “a second
layer”, as recited in claims 1 and/or 2 (lines 1-2).
The claimed limitation of "one layer …", as recited in claim 14, is unclear as to which layer applicant refers: a tunneling layer, a multi-layer charge trapping layer, a blocking layer, a first layer, a second layer, or an additional unclaimed layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 11, as best understood, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Kito et al. (2011/0188321).
As for claims 1 and 11, Kito et al. show in Figs. 3-4 and related text a nonvolatile trapped-charge memory device 110, comprising:
a channel region SP formed in a cylindrical semiconductor material ([0046]);
a tunneling layer 42 abutting the channel region, wherein the tunneling layer includes at least two separate layers (a first layer and a second layer) ([0129]);
a multi-layer charge trapping layer 48 abutting the tunneling layer ([0130]); and
a blocking layer 43 abutting the multi-layer charge trapping layer.
As for claim 2, Kito et al. show the tunneling layer includes a first layer proximate to the channel region and a second layer proximate to the charge trapping layer, wherein one of the first and second layer includes a nitridized oxide ([0129]: i.e. silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride).
Regarding the process limitations ("nitridized"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 3, Kito et al. show the charge-trapping layer comprises at least a first nitride layer proximate to the tunneling layer and a second nitride layer away from the tunneling layer ([0130], i.e. silicon oxynitride/aluminum oxide/aluminum oxynitride).
As for claim 4, Kito et al. show the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise oxynitride ([0130]).
As for claim 6, Kito et al. show a gate layer WL abutting the blocking layer (Fig. 4).
Claims 5, 10, 12-15 and 19, as best understood, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kito et al. (2011/0188321) in view of Lin (6,518,200).
As for claims 5 and 12, Kito et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 3 and 11, respectively, above, including the multi-layer charge trapping layer comprises at least a first (nitride) layer to the tunneling layer and a second (nitride) layer away from the tunneling layer (Fig. 4; [0130]).
Kito et al. do not disclose the first nitride layer is oxygen rich relative to the second nitride layer (claim 5); and the first layer is oxygen-rich and the second layer is oxygen-lean (claim 12).
Lin teaches in Figs. 1-3 and related text:
As for claim 5, the first nitride layer is oxygen rich relative to the second nitride layer (Col. 5, lines 19-25 and lines 30-44; Col. 6, lines 50-64).
As for claim 12, the first layer 12a is oxygen-rich and the second layer 12b is oxygen-lean (Col. 5, lines 19-25 and lines 30-44; Col. 6, lines 50-64).
Kito et al. and Lin are analogous art because they are directed to a multi-layer dielectric structure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kito et al. with the specified feature(s) of Lin because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to include oxygen-rich oxynitride layer and oxygen-lean oxynitride layer, as the first layer and the second layer, respectively, as taught by Lin, in Kito et al.'s device, in order to improve the interface characteristics between the gate dielectric layer and the substrate and improve the reliability of the process.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As for claims 10 and 19, the combined device shows the charge-trapping layer is a multi-layer charge trapping layer including an intermediate anti-tunneling layer separating an oxygen-lean second layer from the first nitride layer that is oxygen-rich (Kito: [0130]).
As for claim 13, the combined device shows the first layer and the second layer of the multi-layer charge trapping layer are nitrides (Kito: [0130]).
As for claim 14, the combined device shows the tunneling layer includes a first layer proximate to the channel region and a second layer proximate the multi-layer charge trapping layer, wherein the first layer includes the nitridized oxide (Kito: [0129]).
Regarding the process limitations ("nitridized"), these would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As for claim 15, the combined device shows a gate layer WL abutting the blocking layer (Kito: Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6,10-15 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached on (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811