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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D (Fig. 6) in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 7, 9-12, 16 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/28/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 13-15, 17, and 19 is/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.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 13, the limitation “the active areas” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of active areas.”
Regarding claim 1, 2 and 4, the limitation “the second insulating layers” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of second insulating layers.”
Regarding claim 1, 4, 6, and 17, the limitation “the word lines” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of word lines.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the at least one first word line interlaces ends portion of corresponding ones of the active areas to partially expose the lateral edges of a corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions,” is unclear as to the correspondence of elements in the instance that there is more than one first word line. It is further unclear as to what is required by “interlaces.” It is further unclear as to what is required by “ends portion.” It is further unclear because the claim appears to require the single second insulating layer to be adjacent to plural end portions and it is unclear how the single second insulating layer would be understood as adjacent to plural end portions. It is further unclear as to if “to partially expose the lateral edges” requires partially exposing two lateral edges.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the at least one first word line interlaces the end portions of the active areas to completely expose the two lateral edges of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions,” is unclear as to how “the two lateral edges” is related to the limitations of claim 1. It is further unclear as to how the limitation is related to partial overlap recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the at least one first word line interlaces the end portions of the active areas to completely expose a lateral edge of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions, in the second direction,” is unclear as to how it is related to the requirements of claim 2, which appear to require both lateral edges to be completely exposed. It would appear that the limitation is a broader recitation, and therefore it is unclear which is required.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “each of the word lines” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of word lines,” the “at least one first word line,” and the “plurality of second word lines.”
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the two lateral edges of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers,” is unclear as to how it is related to the second insulating layer which corresponds to the first word line and lateral edges thereof.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a third word line,” is unclear because a second word line has not preceded the recitation of a third word line.
Regarding claim 8, 13, 15, 16 and 17, the limitation “the shallow trench isolations” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of shallow trench isolations.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a plurality of shallow trench isolations disposed in the substrate, each of the shallow trench isolations comprising a first insulating layer and a second insulating layer stacked in sequence,” is unclear as to what is required by a plurality of shallow trench isolations. Specifically, the disclosure shows a single shallow trench isolation with a single first insulating layer and a plurality of second insulating layers. It is therefore unclear as to the proper interpretation of “plurality of shallow trench isolation.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “each of the shallow trench isolations comprising…the first insulating layer physically contacting one of the active areas,” is unclear as to if each of the first insulating layers are required to contact a single active area, or if each of the first insulating layers are required to contact a respective active area.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “the first (second) insulating layer,” (lines 12-14) are unclear as to how it is related to the plural shallow trench isolations, each comprising a first (second) insulating layer, i.e. a plurality of first (second) insulating layers.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “the word lines comprise at least one first word line, at least a portion of the second insulating layer is disposed between a sidewall of the at least one first word line and the first insulating layer of a corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations,” is unclear as to the correspondence of elements in the instance that there is more than one first word line.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the at least one first word line only overlaps the first insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the active areas,” is unclear as to what is required by “only.” Specifically, it is noted that all elements will overlap all other elements of the device in at least one direction. It is further unclear as to if “the at least one first word line only overlaps the first insulating layer…and the active areas,” is intended or if “the first insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the active areas,” is intended in regards to “the active areas.”
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “wherein a sidewall of the second insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations overlaps the sidewall of the at least one first word line,” is unclear as to how it is possible and/or compatible with “the at least one first word line only overlaps the first insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the active areas,” recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a portion of the first insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations is sandwiched between the second insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the sidewall of the at least one first word line,” is unclear as to the correspondence of elements in the instance that there is more than one first word line.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the second word lines” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of second word lines.”
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “each of the word lines,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of word line,” “at least on first word line,” and “plurality of second word lines.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20250048620; herein “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses in Fig. 1A-C and related text a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (114);
a plurality of active areas (100) disposed in the substrate, the active areas spaced apart from each other and arranged in a first direction (e.g. D3);
a shallow trench isolation (e.g. 102 and 104, see [0014] and [0015]) disposed in the substrate, comprising a first insulating layer (102) and a plurality of second insulating layers (104), the first insulating layer physically contacting each of the active areas and surrounding each of the second insulating layers, and each of second insulating layers comprising two lateral edges in the first direction; and
a plurality of word lines (106, see [0016]), disposed in the substrate, the word lines separately extending along a second direction and across the active areas and the shallow trench isolation, the second direction (e.g. D2) being across and not perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the word lines comprises at least one first word line, the at least one first word line interlaces ends portion of corresponding ones of the active areas to partially expose the lateral edges of a corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses wherein the at least one first word line interlaces the end portions of the active areas to completely expose the two lateral edges of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses wherein the at least one first word line interlaces the end portions of the active areas to completely expose a lateral edge of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers adjacent to the end portions, in the second direction (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses wherein the word lines further comprise a plurality of second word lines (e.g. a second subset of 106), each of the word lines completely overlaps (e.g. in the horizontal direction shown in Fig. 1B) the two lateral edges of the corresponding one of the second insulating layers.
Regarding claim 6, Chen further discloses an active boundary (e.g. top portion of Fig. 1A), disposed in the substrate outside all of the active areas, wherein the word lines further comprise a third word line partially overlapping the active boundary (e.g. a 106 which extends to the top portion of Fig. 1A beyond the last 100).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses in Fig. 1A-C and related text a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (114);
a plurality of active areas (100) disposed in the substrate;
a plurality of shallow trench isolations (e.g. 102 and 104, see [0014] and [0015]) disposed in the substrate, each of the shallow trench isolations comprising a first insulating layer (102/104) and a second insulating layer (104/102) stacked in sequence, the first insulating layer physically contacting one of the active areas; and
a plurality of word lines (106, see [0016]) separately disposed in the substrate to respectively overlap the active areas and the shallow trench isolations, wherein the word lines comprise at least one first word line, at least a portion of the second insulating layer is disposed between a sidewall of the at least one first word line and the first insulating layer of a corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses wherein the at least one first word line only overlaps the first insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the active areas (see Figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further discloses wherein a sidewall of the second insulating layer of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations overlaps the sidewall of the at least one first word line (e.g. in the horizontal direction as shown in Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 15, Chen further discloses wherein a portion of the first insulating layer (104) of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations is sandwiched between the second insulating layer (102) of the corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations and the sidewall of the at least one first word line.
Regarding claim 17, Chen further discloses the word lines further comprise a plurality of second word lines (e.g. a second subset of 106), each of the second word lines completely overlaps the second insulating layer of a corresponding one of the shallow trench isolations in a vertical direction (see Fig. 1B).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 17 above, and in view of Yan (US 20220415367; herein “Yan”).
Regarding claim 19, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the word lines comprises an interface layer, a metal barrier layer, a gate electrode, and a capping layer stacked in sequence.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan teaches in Fig. 2 and related text each of the word lines comprises an interface layer, a metal barrier layer, a gate electrode, and a capping layer stacked in sequence (142/143/144/145, see [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen by having wherein each of the word lines comprises an interface layer, a metal barrier layer, a gate electrode, and a capping layer stacked in sequence, as shown by Yan, in order to employ a buried gate structure which functions like a word line (see Yan [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights