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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/370,905 filed on 09/21/2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub # 2022/0293510 to Honda.
Regarding independent claim 1, Honda discloses a semiconductor device (Figs. 2-4), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4: 140);
an isolation layer (Fig. 4: 141 and ¶0041) defining an active region (Fig. 2: 10a and ¶0035) in the substrate (140);
a word line (Fig. 2: 4i and Examiner’s Mark-up below) extending in a first horizontal direction in a first area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the substrate;
a bit line (Fig. 2: 5 and Examiner’s Mark-up below) extending in a second horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) perpendicular to the first horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below), on the substrate; and
a plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up below) provided in a second area (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) of the substrate adjacent in the second horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) to a first end portion of the first area in the first horizontal direction, the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up below) extending in the first horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below),
wherein a length of each of the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up below) in the first horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below) is less than a length of the word line (Fig. 2: 4i and Examiner’s Mark-up below) in the first horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up below).
Examiner’s Note: the limitations “dummy word lines” in claims 1-9 are directed to the intended use and or functional limitation of the device, and inasmuch as it imparts any structure, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the word line 4c, 4f and 4g of Honda is capable of acting in such a manner. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, as in the instant case, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In view of the above, these aforementioned intended use limitations have not been given patentable weight.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Honda discloses wherein each of the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up below) does not overlap the active region (10a) in a vertical direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
533
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Honda discloses wherein the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up above from claim 1) in the second area are arranged apart from one another in the second horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up above from claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Honda discloses wherein the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f, 4g and Examiner’s Mark-up above from claim 1) includes 5 to 20 first dummy word lines arranged apart from one another in the second horizontal direction. Fig. 2 shows at least 5 dummy word lines such as one 4g and two of 4f and two of 4c arranged apart from one another, and Fig. 3 also shows one 4g and two of 4f and two of 4c arranged apart from one another in the second horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 5, Honda further discloses a word line contact (Fig.2: 8) electrically connected the word line (4i), wherein the word line contact (8) is at the first end portion of the first area in the first horizontal direction (see Examiner’s Mark-up above from claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Honda discloses wherein:
at least a portion of the word line contact (Fig. 2: 8) does not overlap the word line (4i, the portion of 8 inside 4i) in a vertical direction, and the word line contact (8) does not overlap the plurality of first dummy word lines (Fig. 2: 4c, 4f and 4g) in the vertical direction.
Regarding claim 7, Honda discloses wherein the length of each of the plurality of first dummy word lines (4c, 4f and 4g) in the first horizontal direction is progressively shorter with increasing distance from the first area. At least Fig. 2, shows dummy word lines 4f, 4c and 4g are progressively shorter with increasing distance from the first area (see Examiner’s Mark-up above from claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Honda discloses as shown in Fig. 1, a semiconductor device includes a plurality of memory mats (2) arranged in a first horizontal direction. Each memory mat (2) corresponds to the memory cell array structure illustrated in Fig. 1A and includes a plurality of dummy word lines (4c, 4f and 4g) disposed adjacent to an edge of an active region.
In Fig. 1, additional memory mats (2) are disposed on opposite sides of a middle memory mat (2) having the first area in the first horizontal direction. Accordingly, the middle memory mat (2) includes the plurality of first dummy word lines as recited in claim 1, while another memory mat (2) located on a right side and diagonal to the memory middle mat (2) is adjacent to an opposite end portion of the first area in the second horizontal direction, the opposite end portion is opposite to the first (left) end portion of the first area. As such the additional memory mat on the right side and diagonal includes a plurality of the second dummy word lines.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the memory mats (2) are spatially separated along the first horizontal direction (see also Fig. 1A, direction W), thereby teaching that the plurality of second dummy word lines of a right-side and diagonal to the memory mat being arranged apart from the plurality of first dummy word lines of the middle memory mat in the first horizontal direction.
Regarding claim 9, Honda discloses as shown in Fig. 1, additionally another memory mat (2) located on a left side and diagonal to the memory middle mat (2) is adjacent to the first (left) end portion in the second horizontal direction. As such the additional memory mat on the left side includes a plurality of the third dummy word lines.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the memory mats (2) are spatially separated along the second horizontal direction (see also Fig. 1A, direction W), thereby teaching the plurality of third dummy word lines of the left diagonal memory mat being arranged apart from the plurality of first dummy word lines of the middle memory mat in the second horizontal direction with the first area therebetween.
Reply to Applicant’s Election with traverse
Applicant’s election of Group I with traverse has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the restriction requirement is improper because the Office has allegedly failed to establish that the subject matter of Group II possesses a utility separate from the claimed combination, and further asserts that no serious search burden has been demonstrated because the claims are directed to semiconductor device structures and would be searched in the same body of art.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the basis of the restriction requirement.
The restriction requirement was not made on the basis that one group constitutes a subcombination having a separate utility from a claimed combination within the meaning of MPEP 806.05(c). Rather, the requirement was made because the inventions as claimed in Groups I–III are drawn to patentably distinct fabrication processes requiring searches in different fields of search, consistent with MPEP 808.01(a).
Specifically, the inventions of Group I are classified in CPC subclass H10D89/10, while the inventions of Groups II and III are classified in H10B12/488 and H10B12/482, respectively. These subclasses correspond to different semiconductor fabrication technologies and process techniques. The prior art applicable to one group would not reasonably be expected to disclose or render obvious the distinct process features recited in the other groups.
Accordingly, the inventions are distinct because examination of each group would require a search in a different field of art directed to different fabrication approaches. Establishment of separate utility for one group relative to another is not required where, as here, restriction is properly based on distinctness requiring materially different searches.
Furthermore, Applicant’s contention that all claims would be searched using the same body of semiconductor device art is not persuasive. Although the claimed subject matter may ultimately relate to semiconductor devices, the fabrication methods recited in each group involve different process mechanisms and structural formation techniques that are classified in different CPC subclasses and would necessitate separate searches in different art units or search areas.
Therefore, examination of all claims together would impose a serious search burden on the Examiner, since separate and distinct searches would be required for each group of claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the requirement for restriction under 35 U.S.C. § 121 is maintained and Applicant’s traverse is not sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub # 2022/0293510 to Honda, US Pub # 2024/0138156 to Chia, US Pub # 2023/0298647 to Sugiura et al., US Pub # 2022/0406364 to Yabe, US Pub # 2022/0302170 to Suzuki et al. and US Pub # 2022/0284953 to Takashima.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896