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 without traverse of group II in the reply filed on 09/23/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 32-34 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.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the pair of dummy source/drain terminals" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 33-34 recite the trench separating the control gate precursor into a pair of dummy source/drain terminals at one side and a pair of source/drain terminals at the other side and separating the source/drain precursor into the control gate at one side and a dummy control gate at the other side. However, it appears that claim 33 should be rewritten so the control gate precursor is separated to form a control gate at one side and a dummy control gate at the other side, and claim 34 should be rewritten so that the source/drain precursor can be separated into dummy source/drain terminals at one side and a pair of source/drain terminals at the other side. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21-22, 24, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kai et al., US 2015/0371709.
As to independent claim 21, Kai et al. shows the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
Forming a pair of source/drain terminals (102,202) over a substrate 100 in a vertical direction perpendicular to a surface of the substrate (see fig. 7);
Forming a control gate 3 vertically between the pair of source/drain terminals;
Etching a recess 62 at one side of the control gate (see fig. 6B) and partially fill the recess with a tunnel dielectric 7/107;
Depositing and patterning a floating gate 109 extended along the vertical direction and separated from the control gate by the tunnel dielectric; and
Forming a channel region 1 extended vertically along the floating gate and separated from the floating gate by a gate dielectric 11 (see figs. 6a-7 and paragraphs 0057-0072).
Concerning dependent claim 22, note that Kai et al. discloses wherein the control gate 3 is formed by forming a control gate precursor and forming a trench 81 in the vertical direction to separate the control gate precursor, wherein the floating gate and the channel region are filled in the trench (see, for example, figs. 6B-6F).
Regarding dependent claim 24, note that Kai et al. discloses wherein the pair of source/drain terminals (102,202) is formed on the other side of the floating gate opposite to the control gate (see fig. 7).
With respect to dependent claim 29, note that Kai et al. discloses wherein the control gate 3 and the pair of source/drain terminals (102,202) are extended along a surface of the substrate and spaced from the substrate (for example, 100by an inter-level dielectric (ILD) layer.
Concerning independent claim 31, Kai et al. discloses a method, comprising:
Forming a control gate precursor layer (103,203) and a source/drain precursor layer (for example, 102 and 202) stacked in a vertical direction perpendicular to a lateral surface of a substrate;
Performing an etching process to form a trench in the vertical direction to cut through the control gate precursor layer and the source/drain precursor layer and form a control gate (103,203) and a pair of source/drain terminals (102,202); and
Within the trench, forming a channel region 1, a gate dielectric 11, and a floating gate 9 (see fig. 6D) along the control gate (103,203) and between the pair of source/drain terminals (102/202) (see figs. 6a-7 and paragraphs 0057-0072).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kai et al., US 2015/0371709.
Kai et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the first source/drain contact and the second source/drain contact are laterally shifted from one another and extend upwardly along the vertical direction. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form three dimensional devices which are stacked vertically and have contacts that extend upwardly along the vertical direction. Regarding the contacts being laterally shifted from each other, note that rearrangement of parts has been held to have been obvious.
Regarding dependent claim 35, Kai et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the floating gate is formed with a bump-shaped metal component with a convex sidewall contacting the gate dielectric. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the floating gate of metal because this is a well-known gate material due to its high conductivity. Regarding the shape of the floating gate being convex, note that the configuration of the claimed floating gate is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the floating gate is significant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, particularly Kai et al., US 2015/0371709, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: patterning the first source/drain precursor layer, the gate precursor layer, and the second source/drain precursor layer to form a first dummy source/drain terminal, a control gate, and a second dummy source/drain terminal on the first side and to form a first source/drain terminal, a dummy control gate, and a second source/drain terminal on the second side, as required by independent claim 16.
Claims 23, 25-27, and 30 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, particularly Kai et al., US 2015/0371709, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein a dummy control gate is formed from the control gate precursor on the other side of the channel region opposite to the control gate, as required by dependent claim 23. Moreover, Kai et al. also fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the trench separates the source/drain precursor to a pair of dummy source/drain terminals and the pair of source/drain terminals, as required by dependent claim 25. Additionally, Kai et al. does not anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the floating gate is formed with a straight first sidewall and a convex-shaped second sidewall, as required by dependent claim 30.
Claim 32-34 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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, particularly Kai et al., US 2015/0371709, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein the control gate and the pair of dummy source/drain terminals are formed at opposite sides of the trench, as required by dependent claim 32. Moreover, the prior art, particularly Kai et al., US 2015/0371709, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of the control gate precursor is separated to form a control gate at one side and a dummy control gate at the other side, and the source/drain precursor can be separated into dummy source/drain terminals at one side and a pair of source/drain terminals at the other side, as required by dependent claims 33 and 34.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 12,101,928 discloses a vertical memory device with a floating gate formed in a recess (see, for example, fig. 6 and its description) and Kwon et al., US Patent 11,164,882 also discloses a vertically extending memory with a floating gate formed in a recess (see fig. 9, for example).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
December 6, 2025