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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 8, 2026 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) based upon the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 depends on claim 11. Applicant amendment claim 11 to be an independent claim. However, Applicant did not amend claim 11 to include all the elements on which previous claim 13 was dependent on. Specifically the limitations of claim 7 and 9. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for lacking antecedent basis. However, if it did not lack antecedent basis is would likely be rejected for the same reasons as at least one of claims 7 or 9.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 11, 21-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sharangpani et al. (US 2017/0278859 A1) (“Sharangpani”), with teaching reference Nakajima et al., "forming gate regions within the first tiers, the forming the gate regions comprising a forming high-k liner material and a conducive material, the high- k liner material being formed in direct physical contact with an insulative material of the second tiers", Applied Physics Letters, vol. 80, No. 7, Feb. 18, 2022 ("Nakajima") (see MPEP 2131.01).
Regarding claim 1, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7E:
forming a stack comprising vertically-alternating first tiers (42/46) and second tiers (32),
the first tiers being conductive (46) and the second tiers being insulative at least in a finished-circuitry construction (32);
forming channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (42/46);
forming charge-storage material (54) in the channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (32 and 42/46),
the charge-storage material (54) comprising a first charge-trap density (¶ 0053, where 54 comprises SiON);
increasing the first charge-trap density of the charge-storage material that is in the first tiers as compared to the charge-storage material that is in the second tiers to a second charge-trap density (figure 7C; ¶¶ 0079-80, where SiON 54 is converted to SiN 354; where according to Applicant’s ¶ 0021 increasing is removing oxygen. This is what happens to 354 per the paragraphs above); and
forming channel material (60) in the channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (32 and 42/46) and that is laterally-inward of the charge-storage material (54/354); and
forming gate regions (detailed below) within the first tiers (detailed below),
the forming the gate regions comprising (detailed below)
a forming high-k liner material (154, ¶ 0079, where 154 can be SiN; Nakajimia teaches in at least the abstract that SiN is a high-k dielectric) and
a conducive material (46),
the high- k liner (154) material being formed in direct physical contact with an insulative material of the second tiers (32).
Regarding claim 2, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
comprising forming the channel material after forming the charge-storage material (See figures 3A-3B, where 60 is formed after 54/354).
Regarding claim 3, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
comprising forming the channel material before the increasing (figure 7B shows that 60 is formed before 354 in figure 7C).
Regarding claims 7-8, and 24-25, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
wherein the charge-storage material comprises SixNyOz, where the x and the y are greater than 0, and where the z is 0 or greater than 0 (¶0053).
Regarding claim 11,
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. Claim 11 contains the limitation “the increasing comprising removing at least one of silicon and oxygen from the charge- storage material”. Removing the oxygen is taught in the analysis of claim 1 above. The removal of the silicon, claim 12, is allowable.
Regarding claim 21, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
forming a stack comprising vertically-alternating first tiers (42/46) and second tiers (32),
the first tiers comprising sacrificial material (42) and the second tiers comprising non-sacrificial material (32) that is of different composition from that of the sacrificial material (¶ 0036),
the stack comprising memory-block regions (area of 50 with 354) ;
forming channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers in the memory-block regions (32 and 42/46);
forming insulator material (53) in the channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (32 and 42/46),
the insulator material being of different composition from that of the sacrificial material and from that of the non-sacrificial material (¶ 0052);
forming charge-storage material (54) in the channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (32 and 42/46) laterally-inward of the insulator material (53),
the charge-storage material comprising a first charge-trap density (based upon the material of 54 it will inherently have a first charge-trap density);
forming channel material (60) in the channel openings (49) through the first and second tiers (32 and 42/46) laterally-inward of the charge-storage material (54);
through horizontally-elongated trenches that individually extend through the first tiers and the second tiers between immediately-adjacent of the memory-block regions, removing the sacrificial material and the insulator material from the first tiers to expose the charge-storage material in the first tiers (figures 6-7B show this);
increasing the first charge-trap density of the exposed charge-storage material that is in the first tiers as compared to the charge-storage material that is in the second tiers to a second charge-trap density (figure 7C; ¶¶ 0079-80, where SiON 54 is converted to SiN 354; where according to Applicant’s ¶ 0021 increasing is removing oxygen. This is what happens to 354 per the paragraphs above); and
through the horizontally-elongated trenches, forming conducting material in the first tiers and that comprises control-gate lines in the memory-block regions (46; shown in figure 7E).
Regarding claim 22, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
wherein the sacrificial material (42) comprises silicon nitride (¶ 0036, where 42 can be SiN, or SiON),
the non-sacrificial material comprises (32) silicon dioxide, and the insulator material comprises at least one of hafnium oxide, aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, and SiCN (¶ 0036).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9-10, 23, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharangpani.
Regarding claims 4-6, 9, 23, and 26, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7D:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the second and arrive at the claim limitation. This is because the charge density of the charge storage material is a result dependent variable. This because one of ordinary skill in the art understands the charge density of the charge storage material, and know how to vary the material in order to change the charge density of said charge storage materials. ¶¶ 0053, 81, 0101. Further, all the necessary materials to form the claimed device are well-known in the art.
Therefore, with respect to these claims, because the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art is it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Thus optimization of the claim would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 10, and 27, Sharangpani teaches at least in figure 1-7E:
wherein the increasing comprises adding nitrogen to the charge-storage material (¶ 0079, where a thermal nitridation process and a plasma nitridation process can be used to convert 54 to SiN).
Regarding claim 28,
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 30,
Claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 11-12, and 24 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 29 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:
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art does not teach:
wherein the increasing comprises removing silicon.
This is because the prior art only teaches removing oxygen. Not removing silicon with the oxygen.
Regarding claim 29,
Claim 29 is allowable for the same reason as claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the prior art does not teach the amendments to the claims. Examiner disagrees. The prior art teaches forming a high-k dielectric as required by the claims. Examiner has proffered a secondary reference under MPEP 2131.01 which teaches that SiN is considered a high-k dielectric. Thus, the prior art teaches the claimed subject matter.
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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights