DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 10, 15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A semiconductor memory device comprising: a substrate comprising a cell region and a peripheral region; a cell region isolation layer that separates the cell region from the peripheral region; and a plurality of cell gate structures on the cell region of the substrate, each of the plurality of cell gate structures comprising a cell gate electrode that extends in a first direction, wherein the cell region of the substrate comprises a plurality of active areas that extend in a second direction different from the first direction, wherein the active areas are between the cell region isolation layer and a cell element isolation layer and between respective portions of the cell element isolation layer, wherein each of the active areas comprises a first portion and a second portion separated by one of the cell gate structures, wherein the second portion of a respective one of the active areas is on both sides of a respective one of the first portion of the active areas, wherein ones of the plurality of active areas are in a normal active area or a dummy active area, wherein a width of a first portion of the dummy active area in the first direction is greater than a width of a first portion of the normal active area in the first direction, wherein the cell gate structure comprises a head region at an end of the cell gate structure and a body region that extends from the head region in the first direction, wherein a width of the head region of the cell gate structure in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction increases from an end of the head region to a middle portion of the head region and the width of the head region decreases from the middle portion of the head region to the body region of the cell gate structure, and wherein at least a portion of the head region of the cell gate structure overlaps the respective one of the active areas and the cell element isolation layer in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.” in lines 1-28.
There is lack of clarity in claim 1 for “first direction,” “second direction,” and “third direction” in terms of coordination of these directions relative the substrate whether these directions are “horizontal or lateral” direction or “vertical direction” or “orthogonal” direction. There Applicant should define each of these directions relative to their coordination. For example, the claim can be modified as follows: each of the plurality of cell gate structures comprising a cell gate electrode that extends in a first direction, wherein the first direction is a horizontal direction relative to an upper surface of the substrate” and set forth consistent to Figs. 1-28 of the instant application.
Similar change should be made for claims 10 and 15 with regarding “first direction,” “second direction,” and “third direction” appropriately.
Claim 1 recites “the active areas” through the claim and there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the active areas” in the claim. Changing “the active areas” to --the plurality of active areas-- throughout the claim provides proper antecedent basis.
Similar changes should be made for “the active areas” in claim 20.
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.
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.
Claim 1 recites “the cell gate structure” in lines 20-21 and throughout the claim.
However, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis in the claim. Changing recites “the cell gate structure” to --the plurality of cell gate structures” may provide proper antecedent basis.
Similar changes should be made for “the cell gate structure” in claims 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 respectively.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the active area” in lines 2 and 3.
However, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “the active area” in the claim. Changing “the active area” to --the plurality of active areas-- may provide proper antecedent basis.
Similar changes should be made for “the active area” in claims 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15 respectively.
Claims 2-9, 11-14, 16-20 are also rejected as being directly or indirectly dependent of the rejected independent base claim.
Although an attempt has been made to identify all instances of claim language non- complacence, such identification is extremely burdensome due to the large number of instances. Examples are provided above. Since such noncompliance confuses the claims to the extent that not all of the problems are ready apparent, then upon amendment, if an alternative interpretation of claim language requires a change in the rejection, the new rejection may properly made final.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the claims’ structure to ensure proper claim construction and to correct any subsequently discovered instances of claim language noncompliance. See Morton International Inc., 28USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (CAFC, 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10 and 15 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
In addition, claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20 should be amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure LEE et al. (US 2021/0098460), LEE et al. (US 2021/0126098) and CHANG et al. (US 2022/0139927) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
January 5, 2026