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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-10 and 30-39, in the reply filed on October 31, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "402" and "432" have both been used to designate “first dielectric material”; reference characters "214" and "215" have both been used to designate “select line”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “432” has been used to designate both “first dielectric material” and “fourth dielectric material”. 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. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) Undefined acronyms/symbols, such as “SONOS” ([0036], “CMOS” ([0038]) and “GIDL” ([0049]). The examiner suggests that applicant spell out all the acronyms/symbols when using them for the first time in the disclosure; and 2) a space should be inserted between number and unit (first occurrence; [0056]).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: “first” should read “second” before “memory” (claim 35, line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 30, 31 and 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Higuchi et al. (2016/0013201).
As for claims 1-4, 30, 31 and 37, Higuchi et al. show in Figs. 1, 2A-2B and related text a memory array structure 1, comprising:
a first memory cell MC comprising a first control gate 10 and a first portion 47/43 of a charge-blocking structure 47/43/35/45 adjacent to a sidewall of the first control gate;
a second memory cell MC comprising a second control gate 10 and a second portion 47/43 of the charge-blocking structure adjacent to a sidewall of the second control gate; and
a first dielectric material 15 between the first control gate and the second control gate, and comprising a sidewall adjacent to a third portion 35/45 of the charge-blocking structure that is between the first portion of the charge-blocking structure and the second portion of the charge-blocking structure;
wherein the third portion of the charge-blocking structure comprises a second dielectric material 45 ([0061]: silicon oxynitride) and a third dielectric material 35/(outer portion) of 43 ([0048] and [0060]: silicon oxide) different than the second dielectric material;
wherein the first portion of the charge-blocking structure and the second portion of the charge-blocking structure each comprise the third dielectric material and a fourth dielectric material 47/(inner portion of) 43 ([0066] and [0060]: aluminum oxide/silicon oxide) different than the second dielectric material; and
wherein the fourth dielectric material is an oxidation reaction product of the second dielectric material and is a same dielectric material as the third dielectric material;
wherein the fourth dielectric material has a different dielectric constant than the second dielectric material ([0060], [0061] and [0066]).
Regarding the process limitations ("the fourth dielectric material is an oxidation reaction product of the second dielectric material"), 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 5, Higuchi et al. show the second dielectric material comprises a silicon-containing dielectric material ([0061]), and wherein the fourth dielectric material comprises silicon dioxide ([0060]).
As for claims 10 and 36, Higuchi et al. show the third portion of the charge-blocking structure consists essentially of the second dielectric material and the third dielectric material, and wherein the first portion of the charge-blocking structure and the second portion of the charge-blocking structure each consist essentially of the third dielectric material and the fourth dielectric material (Fig. 2B).
As for claim 38, Higuchi et al. show the third dielectric material and the fourth dielectric material each comprise silicon dioxide ([0048], [0060]).
As for claim 39, Higuchi et al. show a fifth dielectric material 15 between the first control gate and the first portion of the charge-blocking structure, between the second control gate and the second portion of the charge-blocking structure, between the first control gate and the first dielectric material, and between the second control gate and the first dielectric material (Figs. 1 and 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 32-35 are allowed.
Claims 6-9 and 32-35 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “the second dielectric material of the third portion of the charge-blocking structure is immediately adjacent to the sidewall of the first dielectric material”, as recited in claims 6 and 32.
Conclusion
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 at (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