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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response of 04/06/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is provided. Objections to the drawing is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 (a) the Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as discussed below. Claims 13-28 are under consideration. New claims 21-26 are added. Claims 13-16, 18-21 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 27–28 are objected to as being improperly presented. Specifically, claims 27–28 are labeled as “(Original),” however, the claims appear to be newly added in the present amendment.
Applicant is required to properly identify the status of each claim in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(c).
Appropriate correction is required to designate claims 27–28 with the proper status identifier (e.g., “(New)”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-21 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 13 recites the limitation “the portion being less than the vertical length” which is unclear because it fails to specify what structure the “vertical length” refers to. While the claim earlier recites “a vertical length of the first metal region,” the later recitation omits the reference to the first metal region.
As a result, it is unclear whether “the vertical length” refers to the first metal region, the second metal region, the third region, or another structure of the device.
Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the top surfaces" in the last line which is unclear because it fails to specify what structure the “the top surface” refers to. While the claim earlier recites “top surfaces of the first and second metal regions,” the later recitation omits the reference to “of the first and second metal regions”.
As a result, it is unclear whether “the top surface” refers to the first metal region, the second metal region, the third region, or another structure of the device.
Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a level disposed away from a level of bottom surfaces the top surfaces” is unclear and renders the scope of the claim indefinite. The phrase lacks proper grammatical structure and does not clearly define the relationship between the referenced “level,” “bottom surfaces,” and “top surfaces.”
It is unclear what structure corresponds to the “level,” and how such level is “disposed away” from another level. Additionally, the phrase “bottom surfaces the top surfaces” is ambiguous and appears to omit necessary connective language, thereby making it unclear whether the limitation refers to bottom surfaces, top surfaces, or a relationship between both.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim with reasonable certainty.
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.
Claims 13-14, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2023/0225129 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding independent claim 13, Lin discloses a memory device (Fig. 42) comprising:
One or more vertical contacts (see Fig. 42: where 252 is formed with respect to Fig. 15: trench 212 & ¶0034) extending through levels of the memory device (Fig. 42), each of the one or more vertical contacts (trench 212) including:
a first metal region (Fig. 42: 252) having a length extending through the levels, the first metal region (252) being an innermost region of the vertical contact (212);
a second metal region (Fig. 42: 223) on and contacting (contacting via 224A and 225A, no direct contact is recited in the claim) the first metal region (252); and
a third region (Fig. 42: 224A) having a border on the second metal region (223), the border extending vertically downward along at least a portion of the vertical length of the first metal region (252), the portion being less than the vertical length (the vertical length of 224A is less or shorter than the vertical length of 252; see Fig. 42).
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses wherein the one or more vertical contacts (see Fig. 42: where 252 is formed with respect to Fig. 15: trench 212 & ¶0034) extend from above a memory array of the memory device to below the memory array (Fig. 42).
Regarding claim 19, Lin discloses wherein the first metal region (252) includes tungsten (¶0053).
Regarding claim 21, Lin (in view of the 112(b) rejection above) discloses wherein the third region (Fig. 42: 223) extends from a level of top surfaces of the first (252) and second (224A) metal regions to a level disposed away (bottom surface of 223 is away from the bottom surface of 252) from a level of bottom surfaces the top surfaces. It is noted that the term “a level of bottom surfaces the top surfaces” is referring to (see 112(b) rejection above).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-14 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2022/0028879 to Mochizuki et al. (Mochizuki) in view of US Pub # 2023/0225129 to Lin et al. (Lin).
Regarding independent claim 13, Mochizuki discloses a memory device (Fig. 20A) comprising:
One or more vertical contacts (Fig. 20A: 76) extending through levels of the memory device (Fig. 20A and ¶0112), each of the one or more vertical contacts (76) including:
a first metal region (76B) having a length extending through the levels, the first metal region (76B) being an innermost region of the vertical contact (76);
a second metal region (Fig. 20A: 76A) on and contacting the first metal region (76B); and
a third region (Fig. 20A: 75) having a border (the border is presently considered the portion of layer 75 that contacts 76A and 76B) on the second metal region (76B), the border extending vertically downward along at least a portion of the vertical length of the first metal region (76A) (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
Mochizuki fails to explicitly disclose the portion being less than the vertical length.
Lin discloses the portion being less than the vertical length (the vertical length of 224A is less or shorter than the vertical length of 252; see Fig. 42).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the third region of Mochizuki with the portion being less than the vertical length as taught by Lin in order to store the digital information (e.g., a bit “1” or “0”) stored in the memory cell TT (¶0055).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Mochizuki discloses wherein the one or more vertical contacts (at least 76A and 76B) extend from above a memory array of the memory device to below the memory array (Fig. 20A).
Regarding claim 18, Mochizuki discloses wherein the third region (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) includes a solid dielectric (a solid dielectric is presently considered to be a portion of 75 that is in contact with 76A and 76B) between the second metal region (76A) and a wall of a dielectric structure in which the vertical contact (76A and 76B) is positioned (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
Regarding claim 19, Mochizuki discloses wherein the first metal region (76B) includes tungsten (¶0112).
Regarding claim 20, Mochizuki discloses wherein the second metal region (76A) includes titanium, titanium nitride, or a combination of titanium and titanium nitride (¶0112).
Regarding claim 21, Mochizuki (in view of the 112(b) rejection above) discloses wherein the third region (Fig. 20A: 75) extends from a level of top surfaces of the first (76B) and second (76A) metal regions to a level disposed away from a level of bottom surfaces the top surfaces (98). It is noted that the term “a level of bottom surfaces the top surfaces” is referring to (see 112(b) rejection above).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2022/0028879 to Mochizuki et al. (Mochizuki) in view of US Pub # 2023/0225129 to Lin et al. (Lin) and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0045090 to Cui et al. (Cui).
Regarding claim 15, Mochizuki and Lin disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 from which this claim depends.
Mochizuki and Lin fail to explicitly discloses wherein the third region includes a void.
Cui teaches (Fig. 15F) wherein the third region (third region is where 59 is formed) includes a void (¶0159).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the third region of Mochizuki with the void as taught by Cui in order for the fill material portions to be ashed employing an oxygen-containing plasma (¶0159).
Regarding claim 16, Mochizuki and Lin disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 from which this claim depends.
Mochizuki and Lin fail to explicitly discloses wherein the third region includes carbon.
Cui discloses wherein the third region includes carbon (¶0159).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the third region of Mochizuki with the carbon as taught by Cui in order for the fill material portions to be ashed employing an oxygen-containing plasma (¶0159).
Regarding claim 17, Mochizuki and Lin disclose all of the limitations of claim 13 from which this claim depends.
Mochizuki and Lin fail to explicitly discloses wherein the third region includes a void separated from the border by a dielectric material.
Cui discloses (Fig. 35H) wherein the third region includes a void (169) separated from the border (63) by a dielectric material (62 and ¶0281).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the third region of Mochizuki with the void and the dielectric material as taught by Cui in order to surround a void that is located inside a vertical semiconductor channel (¶0281).
PNG
media_image2.png
682
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 13, 14 and 18-20 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.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 to claims 15-17, Applicant’s remarks have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 15-17, applicant does not present any substantive arguments specifically addressing the rejections set forth in the prior Office Action. While applicant generally states that the rejections are “respectfully traversed,” no specific errors in the Examiner’s findings or reasoning have been identified.
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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 and rewritten to overcome the §112 (b) rejection consistent with the examiner's applied interpretation.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 recites:
“wherein the carbon is below top surfaces of the first and second metal regions such that a top end of the carbon is disposed away from the top surfaces.”
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claims 22-28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to independent claim 22, the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations of independent claim 22 “a third region having a border on the second metal region, the border extending vertically downward along at least a portion of the vertical length of the first metal region, the third region including a void along a section of the vertical length of the first metal region, the void having a length that is less than the vertical length of the first metal region.” taken in combination with all other limitations of independent claim 22.
Dependent claims 23-28 inherit the above allowable subject matter and are similarly allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2022/0028879 to Mochizuki et al., US Pub # 2023/0225129 to Lin et al., U.S. Pub # 2022/0406720 to Hinoue et al., U.S. Pub # 2022/0384446 to Harada et al., U.S. Pub # 2022/0069131 to Pesic, U.S. Pub # 2018/0175050 to Son et al., U.S. Pub # 2017/0200735 to Konagai, U.S. Pat # 9,543,319 to Wu et al., U.S. Pat # 9,406,693 to Pang et al., U.S. Pat # 9,397,111 to Chowdhury et al., U.S. Pub # 2016/0181264 to Miyamoto et al. and U.S. Pub # 2016/0172368 to Pang et al.
Mochizuki discloses a memory device (Fig. 20A) comprising, one or more vertical contacts (Fig. 20A: 76) extending through levels of the memory device (Fig. 20A and ¶0112), each of the one or more vertical contacts (76) including, a first metal region (76B) having a length extending through the levels, the first metal region (76B) being an innermost region of the vertical contact (76), a second metal region (Fig. 20A: 76A) on and contacting the first metal region (76B) and a third region (Fig. 20A: 75).
Lin discloses a memory device (Fig. 42) comprising, one or more vertical contacts (see Fig. 42: where 252 is formed with respect to Fig. 15: trench 212 & ¶0034) extending through levels of the memory device (Fig. 42), each of the one or more vertical contacts (trench 212) including, a first metal region (Fig. 42: 252) having a length extending through the levels, the first metal region (252) being an innermost region of the vertical contact (212), a second metal region (Fig. 42: 223) on and contacting (contacting via 224A and 225A, no direct contact is recited in the claim) the first metal region (252) and a third region (Fig. 42: 224A).
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 MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights