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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments for claim 1, Applicant argues that Rabkin fails to teach “a dopant ramping up in concentration through the thickness along the axis from the first isolation material to the second isolation material. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language “through a thickness” as in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 does not indicate that the concentration ramps up through the entirety of the thickness, or that the highest concentration is at the second isolation material. As there is no indication as to whether or not the concentration continually increases or increases then decreases, Rabkin under BRI can still read on the currently amended claim 1.
As independent claims 8 and 15 share the same content in their amendments, the arguments are the same and will not be repeated here. Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 6, 8, and 13 over Hopkins in view of Wang, as claims 6 and 13 have been cancelled, that rejection is withdrawn. This is not to say Applicant’s arguments are persuasive, just that they are moot in light of the claim cancellations.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 5-7 and 13-14 have been canceled. New claims 21-25 have been added.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8-12, 14-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US 10,096,610 B1, hereafter Hopkins) in view of Rabkin et al. (US 6,812,515 B2, hereafter Rabkin).
Regarding claim 1, Hopkins teaches a memory device, comprising:
a first isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, 120_1 in Fig. 3);
a second isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, 120_2 in Fig. 3); and
a control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9) having a thickness along an axis (under BRI, a thickness can be any designated thickness, here will be halfway up the gate material) between the first isolation material (102_1) and the second isolation material (120_2) along an axis (see annotated Fig. 3),
wherein the control gate material (110) includes a dopant (column 6 lines 11-12).
However, Hopkins fails to disclose the control gate material having a dopant ramping up in concentration through the thickness along the axis from the first isolation material to the second isolation material.
Rabkin teaches a memory device similar to Hopkins in which a control gate material (310, stated to be structurally similar to float gate 306, column 6 lines 27-28) has a non-uniform concentration along the axis, with the highest concentration in the middle of the control gate material (as depicted in Fig. 5, column 5 lines 59-61). The non-uniform doping is used to prevent or minimize polysilicon depletion effects (column 6 lines 9-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Hopkins to include a non-uniform concentration of dopants as taught by Rabkin.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses the control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9) includes polysilicon (column 5 line 8).
Regarding claim 3, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses the dopant (column 6 lines 11-12) includes phosphorous (column 6 lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 4, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses the first isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, 120_1 in Fig. 3) includes oxygen (column 8 lines 38-39).
Regarding claim 8, Hopkins teaches a memory device, comprising:
a first isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, 120_1 in Fig. 3);
a second isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, 120_2 in Fig. 3); and
a control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9) in contact with the first isolation material (120_1) and the second isolation material (120_2), wherein the control gate material (110) is recessed relative to
the first isolation material (120_1) and the second isolation material (120_2) in a first direction (see annotated Fig. 3), and the control gate (110) material includes a dopant (column 6 lines 11-12) and a second direction (see annotated Fig. 3) perpendicular to the first direction.
However, Hopkins fails to disclose the control gate material having a dopant ramping up in concentration through the thickness along the axis from the first isolation material to the second isolation material.
Rabkin teaches a memory device similar to Hopkins in which a control gate material (310, stated to be structurally similar to float gate 306, column 6 lines 27-28) has a non-uniform concentration along the axis, with the highest concentration in the middle of the control gate material (as depicted in Fig. 5, column 5 lines 59-61). Under BRI, a thickness can be any designated thickness, here will be halfway up the gate material. The non-uniform doping is used to prevent or minimize polysilicon depletion effects (column 6 lines 9-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Hopkins to include a non-uniform concentration of dopants as taught by Rabkin.
PNG
media_image2.png
712
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 8. Hopkins further discloses a dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) in contact with the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12) and in contact with the control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9), wherein the dielectric material (310) has a material composition that is different from a material composition of the isolation material (the dielectric material can be made of silicon oxide [column 6 line 58] while the isolation material can be an amorphous carbon [column 8 line 38]).
Regarding claim 10, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 9. Hopkins further discloses a floating gate material (320, column 6 line 61), wherein the dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) is between the floating gate material (320) and the control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9).
Regarding claim 11, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 8. Hopkins further discloses a tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) proximate to a face of the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12). The tunnel dielectric is in contact with the floating gate, making in proximate to a face of the isolation material under BRI.
Regarding claim 12, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 11. Hopkins further discloses a cell pillar material (core material 340, column 6 line 67), wherein the tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) is between the cell pillar material (340) and the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12).
Regarding claim 14, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 8. Rabkin further discloses the dopant has a concentration that is decreases towards the isolation material. As stated in column 6 lines 27-28, control gate 310 is structurally similar to float gate 306. Fig. 5 of Rabkin shows the impurity concentration of the float gate 306 to be highest at the center of the doped polysilicon layer (column 5 line 66-column 6 line 6). As the gates are structurally similar, it is obvious that the control gate 310 would also have a concentration that is highest at the center of the control gate material, meaning it decreases towards the isolation material.
Regarding claim 15, Hopkins teaches a memory device, comprising:
an oxide-polysilicon-oxide stack (stack comprising dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12, [oxide material column 8 line 38], 120_1 and 120_2 in Fig. 3 on either side of word line 110, column 5 line 9 [polysilicon column 5 line 8]) having a polysilicon layer (110) between two oxide layers (120_1 and 120_2), wherein the polysilicon layer (110) is recessed relative to the oxide layers (120_1 and 120_2); wherein the polysilicon layer has a phosphorous therein (column 6 lines 15-16).
However, Hopkins fails to disclose the control gate material having a dopant ramping up in concentration through the thickness between the two oxide layers.
Rabkin teaches a memory device similar to Hopkins in which a control gate material (310, stated to be structurally similar to float gate 306, column 6 lines 27-28) has a non-uniform concentration along the axis, with the highest concentration in the middle of the control gate material (as depicted in Fig. 5, column 5 lines 59-61). Under BRI, a thickness can be any designated thickness, here will be halfway up the gate material. The non-uniform doping is used to prevent or minimize polysilicon depletion effects (column 6 lines 9-11). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Hopkins to include a non-uniform concentration of dopants as taught by Rabkin.
Regarding claim 17, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 15. Hopkins further discloses a dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) between the oxide layers, wherein the dielectric material (310) has a material composition that is different from a material composition of the oxide layers (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12). Layer 310 can be formed of silicon nitride, which is not an oxide (column 9 line 13).
Regarding claim 18, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 17. Hopkins further discloses the dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) has a C-shaped cross-section (see annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
671
519
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 17. Hopkins further discloses a polysilicon region (floating gate 320, column 6 line 61, polysilicon column 9 line 32) between the oxide layers (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12), wherein the dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) is between the polysilicon layer (word line 110, column 5 line 9) and the polysilicon region (320).
Regarding claim 20, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 15. Hopkins further discloses a tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) proximate to side faces of the oxide layers (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12). The tunnel dielectric is in contact with the oxide layers, making in proximate to side faces of the oxide layers under BRI.
Regarding claim 21, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses a dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) in contact with the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12) and in contact with the control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9), wherein the dielectric material (310) has a material composition that is different from a material composition of the isolation material (the dielectric material can be made of silicon oxide [column 6 line 58] while the isolation material can be an amorphous carbon [column 8 line 38]).
Regarding claim 22, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses a floating gate material (320, column 6 line 61), wherein the dielectric material (IPD layer 310, column 6 line 54) is between the floating gate material (320) and the control gate material (word line 110, column 5 line 9).
Regarding claim 23, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses a tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) proximate to a face of the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12). The tunnel dielectric is in contact with the floating gate, making in proximate to a face of the isolation material under BRI.
Regarding claim 24, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses a tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) proximate to a face of the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12). The tunnel dielectric is in contact with the floating gate, making in proximate to a face of the isolation material under BRI.
Regarding claim 25, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 24. Hopkins further discloses a cell pillar material (core material 340, column 6 line 67), wherein the tunnel dielectric material (330, column 6 line 65) is between the cell pillar material (340) and the isolation material (dielectric layers 120, column 5 line 12).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins in view of Rabkin as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Brewer et al. (US 11,094,699 B1, hereafter Brewer).
Regarding claim 16, Hopkins in view of Rabkin teach the memory device of claim 15. Hopkins in view of Rabkin fail to teach the polysilicon layer has a phosphorous concentration that is greatest proximate to a first of the two oxide layers. Rabkin discloses the polysilicon layer has a phosphorous concentration that is greatest at the center of the polysilicon layer as opposed to near an oxide layer (column 6 lines 27-28 states control gate 310 is structurally similar to float gate 306 and Fig. 5 shows the impurity concentration of the float gate 306 to be highest at the center of the doped polysilicon layer).
However, Fig. 7B of Brewer teaches a doped polysilicon layer (106, column 7 lines 16-23) that has a gradient concentration of phosphorous where the highest concentration can be at a variety of locations, while still having a functioning device. Brewer teaches the higher dopant concentration within the polysilicon layer can be anywhere in the thickness (106, column 7 lines 16-23), making the position of the highest concentration near a first of the two oxide layers an obvious variant compared to the highest concentration in the center. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polysilicon layer of Rabkin to have the highest dopant concentration to be proximate to a first of the two oxide layers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892