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
RCE, received 8/14/2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0411546 A1) in view of Roberts et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0323199 A1), hereafter referred to as Roberts.
As to claim 19, Son discloses an apparatus (fig 3A [0020]), comprising:
a stack of materials (470, 485a) comprising a plurality of word lines (485a; [0043]) and a plurality of layers of first insulating material (layer 470 on top of each word line 485a and layer 470 on bottom of each word line 485a; [0046]) between respective word lines (485a) of the plurality of word lines (485a);
a plurality of lateral word line contacts (485b) that couples a respective word line (485a) of the plurality of word lines (485a) with a respective conductive pillar (510; [0056]) of a plurality of conductive pillars (510);
a material (315) in contact with the plurality of word lines (485a);
a second insulating material (505; [0054]) insulating a respective word line (485a) from the plurality of conductive pillars (510); and
a metal oxide semiconductor (MOS including 152, 102, 104, 105; [0026]-[0028]) positioned below the stack of materials (470, 485a) and coupled with each respective conductive pillar (510).
Son does not disclose that the material of insulating material layer 315 that is in contact with the plurality of word lines 485a is carbon-doped.
Nonetheless, Roberts discloses a similar vertical memory device ([0059]-[0060]) that includes a material of insulating material layer (fig 5, layer 16; [0060]) that is in contact with a plurality of word lines (26, 27; [0064] access lines being word line as taught in [0002]) is carbon-doped ([0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to make the material of layer 315 of Son with a carbon doped material layer 16 as taught by Roberts since Roberts teaches that using this carbon-doped material layer was known for providing insulation between word lines and the carbon-doped material would increase the dielectric constant of the insulating material relative to a non-carbon doped silicon dioxide layer taught by Son.
As to claim 20, Son in view of Roberts disclose the apparatus of claim 19 (paragraphs above),
Son further discloses wherein one or more portions (505) of a first word line (385a) of the plurality of word lines (385a) comprise the second insulating material (505) and the first word line (385a) is isolated from one or more conductive pillars (510) of the plurality of conductive pillars (510) based at least in part on the second insulating material (505).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1 or 12. Specifically, the closest prior art reference, Son et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0411546 A1), fails to teach or suggest a method, comprising doping at least one nitride layer of each of one or more levels of the set of levels with a carbon material to form a carbon-doped layer; and forming a lateral word line contact that couples a first word line with a conductive pillar based at least in part on the doping, as recited in claim 1; or wherein a first layer of the plurality of layers insulates the conductive pillar from a second word line of the plurality of word lines, as recited in claim 12.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-18 are allowable because of their dependence from one of allowable independent claims 1 or 12.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub. No. 2013/0037860 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN M CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3830. The examiner can normally be reached on MWFS: 7:30-6pm Thurs 1-2pm.
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, Purvis, Sue can be reached at (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAUN M CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights