DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The foreign priority claim was not entered because the foreign priority claim was not filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55. For original applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application) on or after November 29, 2000, the time period is during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. In addition, if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). For national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and the Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). If applicant desires priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon a prior foreign application, applicant must file a petition for an unintentionally delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 identifying the prior foreign application to which priority is claimed, unless previously submitted; (2) a certified copy of the foreign application, unless previously submitted or an exception under 37 CFR 1.55 applies; (3) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2); and (4) a statement that the entire delay between the date the claim was due under 37 CFR 1.55 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
It is noted applicant submitted a Petition on November 18, 2022 and that Petition was DISMISSED in the communication filed on March 17, 2023.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to flash memory device, classified in H10B 43/27.
II. Claim 11, drawn to method of forming a memory device, classified in H10D 30/69.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the device as claimed can be made with a different process deposition step, such as ALD, and not a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “alternately stacked…trapping (nitride) and oxide layers” , does not reasonably provide enablement for “trapping layer and physically separating portions of the Si3N4” as required in claim 1 and in claim 9 “physically separating at least two of the plurality of nitride layers… to create a discontinuity in the nitride material of the trapping layer”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Specifically, while the specification provides enabling disclosure for embodiments in which the trapping layer and intermediate barrier layer are “alternately stacked” (see, e.g., Figs. 3A and 3B and Spec. ¶¶[0037] – [0038]), there is insufficient guidance or working examples for embodiments in which the trapping layer merely includes “physically separated portions” of Si₃N₄ or “physically separating at least two of the plurality of nitride layers … to create a discontinuity in the nitride material.” The specification does not describe how to make or use trapping layers with arbitrary physical separations or discontinuities in the nitride material, nor does it provide sufficient detail for one of ordinary skill to achieve such structures without undue experimentation. The breadth of the claims encompasses a wide range of possible configurations beyond the alternately stacked structure, but the disclosure lacks direction or examples for these broader embodiments. As such, undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of the claims.
This conclusion is supported by application of the Wands factors, including the breadth of the claims, the lack of direction in the specification for non-stacked arrangements, the absence of working examples for such embodiments, and the amount of experimentation necessary to achieve the claimed discontinuities or physical separations in the trapping layer.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 9 detail the “the trapping layer and physically separating portions of the Si3N4” (claim 1) and “the trapping layer and physically separating at least two of the plurality of nitride layers…to create a discontinuity in the nitride material of the trapping layer” (claim 9). The use of this language makes the scope of the claim unclear, because the same terminology is not used in applicant’s specification. There is no discussion of physically separating portions or layers physically separating and creation of a discontinuity in nitride material as required by the claim, so the claims could be read to be discontinuous vertically and/or horizontally, or other undefined arrangements. This lack of correspondence between the claim language and the specification prevents one skilled in the art from clearly ascertaining the meaning and scope of the claims.
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 SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights