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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3 and 8-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the remaining portions” should read “the plurality of remaining portions” (claim 2, lines 4 and 6); a comma “,” should be inserted in between “trenches” and “and” (claim 8, line 37 (pg 4, line 8)). 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 8-15 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 original specification (in the prior-filed application #17/141915, filed on January 5, 2021) for the claim limitations of “filling the … isolation trenches with (the) isolation materials”, as recited in claim 8 (note: [0046] and [0047] disclose filling … isolation trenches with isolation material (not plurality of isolation materials)).
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 1-20 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 “forming ferroelectric layers, semiconductor layers, and dielectric layers along sidewalls of each of the plurality of trenches”, as recited in claims 1 and 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between … layer and sidewall applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “forming first conductive structures, second conductive structures and cell isolation structures in the plurality of trenches”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between … structure and trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “one of the channel isolation structures”, as recited in claim 2, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “one of the channel isolation structures”, as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitation of “sidewalls”, as recited in claim 4, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “sidewalls”, as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitation of "the sidewalls", as recited in claim 5, is unclear as to which sidewalls applicant refers: “sidewalls” as recited in claim 1 and/or claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the bottoms of the plurality of trenches” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one relationship between bottom and trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “replacing the sacrificial layers with the first conductive layers through the plurality of trenches”, as recited in claim 6, is unclear as to which step is “replacing the sacrificial layers with the first conductive layers through the plurality of trenches”, and whether said limitation is the same as or different from “replacing the sacrificial layers with the first conductive layers”, as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitations of “forming glue layers along sidewalls of the plurality first recesses”, as recited in claim 6, are unclear as to whether said limitations are in one-to-one or multiple-to-one relationship between glue layer and sidewall, and between sidewall and trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “forming two ferroelectric layers, two semiconductor layers, and two dielectric layers along the sidewalls of each of the plurality of trenches”, as recited in claim 8, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between … layer and sidewall applicant refers.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sidewalls” in lines 10-11 and 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the sidewall” in line 13. 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 “the sidewalls”, as recited in claim 8, lines 10-11.
The claimed limitation of “one of the sidewall”, as recited in claim 8, is unclear as to the sidewall of which trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitations of “two ferroelectric layers”, “two semiconductor layers” and “two dielectric layers”, as recited in claim 8, line 22, are unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “two ferroelectric layers”, “two semiconductor layers” and “two dielectric layers”, as recited in claim 8, line 10, respectively.
The claimed limitation of “filling sacrificial materials in the plurality of trenches”, as recited in claim 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between sacrificial material and trench applicant refers.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the multi-layered structure” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claimed limitation of “filling the plurality of trenches with additional sacrificial materials”, as recited in claim 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or one-to-multiple between trench and sacrificial material applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “portions of the sacrificial materials”, as recited in claim 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between portion and sacrificial material, and as to the sacrificial materials of which trench applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “extension portions of the first conductive structures”, as recited in claim 16, is unclear as to whether said limitation is in one-to-one or multiple-to-one between extension portion and first conductive structure applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “an adjacent one of the contact portions”, as recited in claim 18, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “one of the contact portions”, as recited in claim 17.
The claimed limitation of “an adjacent one of the channel isolation structures”, as recited in claim 18, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “one of the channel isolation structures”, as recited in claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the conductive layer” in line 1. 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 “conductive layers”, as recited in claim 16.
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 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
Prosecution Insights