Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/06/2026 has been accepted and entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument against the claim objection to claim 10, see Claim Objection on page 15 of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/06/2026, has been fully considered and is persuasive. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 17, see page 16-17 of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 17 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1, and thus its respective dependent claims, see page 17 of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Karyu does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 1 (specifically Karyu does not teach wherein a portion the slit is disposed on the cell array region) and thus and its respective dependent claims.
In view of the amendment, new references have been applied. Claim 1 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2019/0371811 A1 Oike.
Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 8, and thus its respective dependent claims, see page 17 of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 8 has been fully considered and is persuasive. Karyu in view of Kim does not teach all of the limitations of amended claim 8 (specifically Karyu does not teach wherein a portion the slit is disposed on the cell array region) and thus and its respective dependent claims.
In view of the amendment, new references have been applied. Claim 8 now stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2021/0020656 A1 Kim et al and further in view of US 2019/0371811 A1 Oike.
Applicant’s argument against the rejection of independent claim 10, and thus its respective dependent claims, see page 18 of Applicant’s remarks filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 10 has been fully considered and is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection of claim 10 in the non-final rejection filed 11/28/2026, it was believed by the examiner that the phrase “…the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns being spaced apart from each other in the first direction…” should have been recited as “the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns being spaced apart from each other in the second direction”. As mentioned in the statement regarding the claim objection to claim 10 above, clarification was acknowledged and the claim objection was withdrawn, the claim as originally presented is grammatically correct and is consistent with the originally filed specification and drawings as presented. However, as stated in the rejection to claim 10 in the non-final rejection, regardless of which interpretation is correct, Karyu et al reads on the claim as presented. As can be seen in annotated Figure 11A below, the second sub-isolation patterns (which correspond to the portion of the isolation patterns at an angle away from the slit STb) as recited by the examiner are spaced apart from one another in a horizontal (x) direction, and a vertical (y) direction, i.e. the first direction and the second direction respectively, which is consistent with the claim language as presented, and at least one of the second sub-isolation patterns extends from the slit STb, which reads on the claimed limitation as presented, see annotated Fig. 11A below. Additionally, in reference to the first sub-isolation patterns, the length of the first sub-isolation patterns varies in the x-direction, the first direction, which is consistent with the claim language as presented. Therefore, the rejection is maintained, claim 10 stands rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) by US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Karyu Fig. 11A – Annotated by Examiner
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al (herein “Karyu”).
Regarding Claim 10, Karyu discloses:
A memory device (see Figs. 11A-11C) comprising:
a first word line (see top and side views in Figs. 11A-11C, herein “#WL”) including a cell array region (#MR) and a connection region (#IR, #TPc) extending in a first direction (x direction) from the cell array region (#MR), the first word line (#WL) being partitioned by a slit (#ST, #STb);
a plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (portions of #SHE(a-d), see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#SP1”) arranged to be spaced apart from each other in a second direction (y direction) intersecting the first direction (x direction) on the cell array region (#MR) of the first word line (#WL), the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1) extending onto the connection region (#IR, #TPc);
a plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (portions of #SHE(a-d), see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#SP2”) extending in the second direction (y direction) from the slit (#ST, #STb), the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2) being spaced apart from each other in the first direction (x direction), the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2) respectively corresponding to the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1); and
a plurality of select lines (see annotated Fig. 11A below, hrein “#SL”) disposed between the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1), the plurality of select lines (#SL) extending between the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2),
wherein the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1) are formed to different lengths in the first direction (x direction, see Fig. 11A).
Note, see claim objection above. The examiner believes there may be a typographical error in lines 10-11 of the claim, specifically in the recitation of the phrase “…the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns being spaced apart from each other in the first direction…” The examiner believes the phrase should be recited as “the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns being spaced apart from each other in the second direction”. Under both the current recitation and the corrected recitation, Karyu reads on the claim, as the second sub-isolation patterns are staggered vertically and horizontally with respect to the page, however for clarification the correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Karyu Fig. 11A – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 11, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, wherein the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1) are formed longer in the first direction (x direction) as becoming more distant in the second direction (y direction) from the slit (#ST, #STb).
Regarding Claim 12, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, wherein the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2) are individually connected to the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1).
Regarding Claim 13, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, wherein the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2) are connected to ends of the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1).
Regarding Claim 17, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, wherein the plurality of select lines:
are isolated from each other in the second direction (y direction) by the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1), which are interposed between the plurality of select lines (see annotated Fig. 11A above); and
are isolated from each other in the first direction (x direction) on the connection region by the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2), which are interposed between the plurality of select lines (see annotated Fig. 11A above).
Regarding Claim 18, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, further comprising a second word line (word lines on lower half of Fig. 11A with respect to the page) spaced apart from the first word line (#WL) in the second direction by the slit (specifically #STb).
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al (herein “Karyu”) in view of US 2019/0371811 A1 Oike (herein “Oike”).
Regarding Claim 1, Karyu discloses:
A memory device (see Figs. 11A-11C) comprising:
a word line (see top and side views in Figs. 11A-11C, herein “#WL”) including a cell array region (#MR) and a connection region (#IR, #TPc) extending in a first direction (x direction) from the cell array region (#MR);
a first select line (see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#1SL”) and a second select line (see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#2SL”), spaced apart from each other in a second direction (y direction) intersecting the first direction (x direction) on the cell array region (#MR), the first select line (#1SL) and the second select line (#2SL), extending onto the connection region (#IR, #TPc) of the word line (#WL); and
an isolation pattern (#SHEd) disposed between the first select line (#1SL) and the second select line (#2SL),
wherein the isolation pattern (#SHEd) includes a first sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#SP1”) extending in the first direction (x direction) and a second sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#SP2”) extending in the second direction (y direction) from the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1), and
wherein the second select line (#2SL) is bent to surround an outside corner (see annotated Fig. 11A below) defined at an intersection point of the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1) and the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2) of the isolation pattern (SHEd).
further comprising a slit (#STb), and
wherein the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2) extends in the second direction (extends in y direction, i.e. up/down with respect to page) from the slit (#STb).
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a portion of the slit is disposed on the cell array region
However, in analogous art, Oike teaches:
See Fig. 13 showing top-down view of slits and various regions of device. See also Fig. 20 showing top-down view of completed device.
comprising a slit (#SLT), wherein a portion of the slit (#SLT) is disposed on the cell array region ([0079]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Oike to the device disclosed by Karyu and form the slit structure such that a portion of the slit structure is formed in the cell array region. Doing so would be an obvious modification that a person skilled in the art would recognize in order to isolation one portion of the cell array region from another, which would be a simple substitution/modification in order to achieve predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Karyu Fig. 11A – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 2, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 1,
Karyu further discloses:
wherein the first select line (#1SL) and the second select line (#2SL):
are isolated from each other in the second direction (y direction) with the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1) of the isolation pattern (#SHEd), which is interposed therebetween; and
are isolated from each other in the first direction (x direction) on the connection region (#IR, #TPc) with the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2) of the isolation pattern (#SHEd), which is interposed therebetween.
Regarding Claim 3, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 1,
Karyu further discloses:
wherein the first select line (#1SL) includes an end surrounded with an inside corner (see annotated Fig. 11A above) of the isolation pattern (#SHEd), which is defined at the intersection point of the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1) and the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2).
Regarding Claim 4, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 1,
Karyu further discloses:
wherein the first select line (#1SL) includes a first sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) extending along the first direction (x direction) and a second sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) extending along the second direction (y direction), and wherein the second select line (#2SL) surrounds the first sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) and the second sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) of the first select line (#1SL) with the isolation pattern (#SHEd) interposed between the second select line (#2SL) and the first sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) and the second sidewall (see annotated Fig. 11A above) of the first select line (#1SL).
Regarding Claim 5, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 1,
Karyu further discloses:
further comprising: a first cell plug (#PL) penetrating the cell array region (#MR) of the word line (#WL) and the first select line (#1SL); and
a second cell plug (#PL) penetrating the cell array region (#MR) of the word line (#WL) and the second select line (#2SL).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2019/0371811 A1 Oike and further in view of US 2021/0020656 A1 Kim et al (herein “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 6, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 1,
Karyu in view of Oike does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the outside corner is formed in a right angle shape or a curved shape.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
See generally isolation structure (block separation structure) #SR1 shown in various embodiments of the 3D memory device in Kim Figs. 11A-11D and 12B.
wherein the outside corner is formed in a right angle shape or a curved shape (see for example right angle shape of #SR1 shown in Kim Fig. 11A), a curved shape, or a round shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu in view of Oike and form the isolation structure such that it forms a right angle like the one shown in Kim Figs. 11A-11D and 12B. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known structure (acute /obtuse angled isolation structure) for a right angle, which a person skilled in the art would recognize. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) changes in shape. Nothing on the record currently indicates the shape of the corner of the isolation pattern is significant, nor would a change in shape change the mode of operation of the claimed device, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider changing the shape of the corner of the isolation patterns in order to form the device for its intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 7, Karyu in view of Oike discloses: The memory device of claim 3,
Karyu in view of Oike does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the inside corner is formed in a right angle shape or a curved shape.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
See generally isolation structure (block separation structure) #SR1 shown in various embodiments of the 3D memory device in Kim Figs. 11A-11D and 12B.
wherein the inside corner is formed in a right angle shape or a curved shape (see for example right angle shape of #SR1 shown in Kim Fig. 11A), a curved shape, or a round shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu in view of Oike and form the isolation structure such that it forms a right angle like the one shown in Kim Figs. 11A-11D and 12B. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known structure (acute /obtuse angled isolation structure) for a right angle, which a person skilled in the art would recognize. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) changes in shape. Nothing on the record currently indicates the shape of the corner of the isolation pattern is significant, nor would a change in shape change the mode of operation of the claimed device, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider changing the shape of the corner of the isolation patterns in order to form the device for its intended purpose.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2021/0020656 A1 Kim et al and further in view of US 2019/0371811 A1 Oike.
Regarding Claim 8, Karyu discloses:
A memory device (see Figs. 11A-11C) comprising:
a word line (see top and side views in Figs. 11A-11C, herein “#WL”) including a cell array region (#MR) and a connection region (#IR, #TPc) extending in a first direction (x direction) from the cell array region (#MR);
a first select line (see Karyu annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#1SL”) and a second select line (see annotated Fig. 11A below, herein “#2SL”), spaced apart from each other in a second direction (y direction) intersecting the first direction (x direction) on the cell array region (#MR), the first select line (#1SL) and the second select line (#2SL), extending onto the connection region (#IR, #TPc);
an isolation pattern (#SHEd) disposed between the first select line (#1SL) and the second select line (#2SL),
further comprising a slit (#STb), and
wherein the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2) extends in the second direction (extends in y direction, i.e. up/down with respect to page) from the slit (#STb).
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the isolation pattern includes a first sub-isolation pattern extending in the first direction and a second sub-isolation pattern which is spaced apart from the first sub-isolation pattern in an oblique direction and extends in the second direction, and a third sub-isolation pattern connecting an end of the first sub-isolation pattern and an end of the second sub-isolation pattern to each other.
wherein a portion of the slit is disposed on the cell array region
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
wherein the isolation pattern includes a first sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B below, herein “#SP1”) extending in the first direction (x direction) and a second sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B below, herein “#SP2”) which is spaced apart from the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1) in an oblique direction and extends in the second direction (y direction), and a third sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B below, herein “#SP3”) connecting an end of the first sub-isolation pattern (#SP1) and an end of the second sub-isolation pattern (#SP2) to each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu and form the isolation pattern such that a third sub-isolation pattern is included between the first and second sub-isolation patterns. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known isolation structure for another that would isolate one region from another that a person skilled in the art would recognize.
Additionally, in analogous art, Oike teaches:
See Fig. 13 showing top-down view of slits and various regions of device. See also Fig. 20 showing top-down view of completed device.
comprising a slit (#SLT), wherein a portion of the slit (#SLT) is disposed on the cell array region ([0079]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Oike to the device disclosed by Karyu and form the slit structure such that a portion of the slit structure is formed in the cell array region. Doing so would be an obvious modification that a person skilled in the art would recognize in order to isolation one portion of the cell array region from another, which would be a simple substitution/modification in order to achieve predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
865
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Karyu Fig. 11A – Annotated by Examiner (includes third sub-isolation pattern)
PNG
media_image3.png
724
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 12B – Annotated by Examiner
Regarding Claim 9, Karyu in view of Kim and further in view of Oike: The memory device of claim 8,
Kim further teaches:
wherein the third sub-isolation pattern (#SP3) has at least one of a linear shape (see note below), a curved shape, or a round shape.
Note, as interpreted by the examiner under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “wherein the third sub-isolation pattern has at least one of a linear shape, a curved shape, or a round shape.” Can include portions of OR the entirety of the third sub-isolation pattern. In the case of Kim, two portions of the third sub-isolation pattern are linear in shape, which therefore reads on the claimed limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu in view of Oike and form the isolation structure such that it forms a right angle, i.e. a linear shape, like the one shown in Kim Figs. 11A-11D and 12B. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known structure (acute /obtuse angled isolation structure) for a right angle, which a person skilled in the art would recognize. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) changes in shape. Nothing on the record currently indicates the shape of the corner of the isolation pattern is significant, nor would a change in shape change the mode of operation of the claimed device, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider changing the shape of the corner of the isolation patterns in order to form the device for its intended purpose.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2021/0020656 A1 Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 14, Karyu discloses: The memory device of claim 10,
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a third sub-isolation pattern connecting a first sub-isolation pattern and a second sub-isolation pattern, which correspond to each other, among the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns and the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns, the third sub-isolation pattern extending in an oblique direction oblique from the first and second directions.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
further comprising a third sub-isolation pattern connecting a first sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B above, herein #SP3) and a second sub-isolation pattern (individual second sub-isolation pattern from plurality of second sub-isolation patterns, also referred to as #SP2), which correspond to each other, among the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1) and the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2), the third sub-isolation pattern (#SP3) extending in an oblique direction oblique from the first (x direction) and second directions (y direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu and form the isolation pattern such that a third sub-isolation pattern is included between the first and second sub-isolation patterns. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known isolation structure for another that would isolate one region from another that a person skilled in the art would recognize. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) changes in shape. Nothing on the record currently indicates the shape of the corner of the isolation pattern is significant, nor would a change in shape change the mode of operation of the claimed device, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider changing the shape of the corner of the isolation patterns in order to form the device for its intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 15, Karyu discloses: The memory device of claim 10,
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a third sub-isolation pattern connecting a first sub-isolation pattern and a second sub-isolation pattern, which correspond to each other, among the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns and the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns, the third sub-isolation pattern having a linear shape or curved shape.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
further comprising a third sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B above, herein #SP3) connecting a first sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B above, herein #SP1) and a second sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B above, herein #SP2), which correspond to each other, among the plurality of first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1) and the plurality of second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2), the third sub-isolation pattern (#SP3) having a linear shape or curved shape. (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) – Changes in Shape.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu and form the isolation pattern such that a third sub-isolation pattern is included between the first and second sub-isolation patterns. The prior art of record discloses a third sub-isolation pattern (see annotated Fig. 12B above) connecting the first and second sub-isolation patterns. Nothing on the record shows the significance of a curved shape over for example a right angle shape, or an acute/obtuse angle shape like the examples previously disclosed. Doing so would simply be a matter of choice that a person skilled in the art would have found obvious to substitute. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B) changes in shape. Nothing on the record currently indicates the shape of the corner of the isolation pattern is significant, nor would a change in shape change the mode of operation of the claimed device, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider changing the shape of the corner of the isolation patterns in order to form the device for its intended purpose.
Regarding Claim 16, Karyu discloses: The memory device of claim 10,
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a shape formed as the plurality of first and second sub-isolation patterns are connected to each other is a square corner having a ‘┓’ shape.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
wherein a shape formed as the plurality of first (#SP1, see annotated Fig. 12B below) and second (#SP2, see annotated Fig. 12B below) sub-isolation patterns are connected to each other is a square corner having a ‘┓’ shape (see annotated Fig. 12B below).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Kim to the device disclosed by Karyu and substitute the right angle isolation structure for the acute angle isolation structure. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one known isolation structure for another that would isolate one region from another that a person skilled in the art would recognize.
PNG
media_image4.png
724
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 12B – Annotated by Examiner
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084910 A1 Karyu et al in view of US 2021/0036005 A1 Oh (herein “Oh”).
Regarding Claim 19, Karyu discloses:
The memory device of claim 10, wherein a first memory cell array incudes the first word line (#WL), the first sub-isolation patterns (#SP1), the second sub-isolation patterns (#SP2), and the plurality of select lines (#SL).
Karyu does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising a second memory cell array symmetrical to a first memory cell array with respect to the slit,
However, in analogous art, Oh teaches:
See Fig. 3
further comprising a second memory cell array (see annotated Fig. 3 below) symmetrical to the first memory cell array (see annotated Fig. 3 below) with respect to the slit (see annotated Fig. 3 below),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider combining the teachings of Oh to the device disclosed by Karyu and include multiple memory cell arrays in order for the first memory cell array to function in a larger memory device.
PNG
media_image5.png
522
682
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Oh Fig. 3 – Annotated by Examiner
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 Andrew V. Prostor whose telephone number is (571)272-2686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-4:30p.
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 S 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.
/ANDREW VICTOR PROSTOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights