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 Group I, Species A, claims 1-8 and 13-15 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-8, 13-15 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 claim 1, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “the dielectric connection plate overlies the stepped surfaces and contacts and laterally surrounds each of the plurality of dielectric pillar structures.” The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the dielectric connection plate overlies contacts in the contact region or physically touches the plurality of dielectric pillar structures.
For examination purposes, the examiner interprets contacts as physically touches the plurality of dielectric pillars.
Claims 2-8 and 13-15 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries “further comprising a dielectric pillar structure.” The claim is indefinite because it is not clear if the dielectric pillar structure is one of the plurality of dielectric pillar structures.
For examination purposes, the examiner interprets a dielectric pillar structure as one of the plurality of dielectric pillar structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimabukuro et al. US 2022/0375958.
PNG
media_image1.png
561
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shimabukuro et al. US 2022/0375958
Regarding claim 1, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] disclose a memory device, comprising:
an alternating stack of insulating layers 32 and electrically conductive layers 46 [0131], wherein the alternating stack comprises stepped surfaces [0044] located in a contact region 300;
a dielectric material portion 65 [0063] overlying the stepped surfaces of the alternating stack;
a memory opening 49 [0086] Fig. 7A vertically extending through the alternating stack;
a memory opening fill structure [0092] located in the memory opening and comprising a vertical stack of memory elements and a vertical semiconductor channel [0104]-[0114]; and
a dielectric support assembly comprising a plurality of dielectric pillar structures 21 and a dielectric connection plate 22 [0076]-[0079] and [0082], wherein the plurality of dielectric pillar structures 20 vertically extend through the stepped surfaces [0083], the dielectric material portion 65, and an underlying portion 32 of the alternating stack Fig. 10A, and the dielectric connection plate 22 overlies the stepped surfaces and contacts and laterally surrounds each of the plurality of dielectric pillar structures 20.
Regarding claim 2, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] disclose the memory device of Claim 1, wherein the dielectric connection plate 22 extends over multiple ones of the stepped surfaces Fig. 16A.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimabukuro et al. US 2022/0375958.
Regarding claim 3, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] disclose the memory device of Claim 2, wherein:
the dielectric connection plate 22 (annotated above) comprises horizontally-extending dielectric connection plate portions and vertically-extending dielectric connection plate portions but do not expressly disclose a vertical thickness of the horizontally-extending dielectric connection plate portions is the same as a lateral thickness of the vertically-extending dielectric connection plate portions.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 4, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] disclose the memory device of Claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the dielectric connection plate 22 comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges” is significant; the claimed limitation of “wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline.
Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments that are adjoined to each other at vertically-extending edges” is not patentable over Shimabukuro.
Regarding claim 5, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] disclose the memory device of Claim 4, further comprising a dielectric material plate 116 Fig. 16A, [0123] overlying the stepped surfaces of the alternating stack but do not expressly disclose the memory device of Claim 4, further comprising vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate” is significant; the claimed limitation of “vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline.
Therefore, the claimed limitation of “vertically-straight and horizontally-concave surface segments contacting the vertically-straight and horizontally-convex surface segments of the dielectric connection plate” is not patentable over Shimabukuro.
Regarding claim 6, Shimabukuro et al. in Figs. 1-16B and [0046]-[0145] teach the memory device of Claim 5, further comprising a layer contact via structure 86 vertically extending through the dielectric material portion 65 and the dielectric material plate 116 and contacting a top surface of one of the electrically conductive layers 46, Fig. 16A [0123].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-8 and 13-15 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: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious in the context of the claims:
7. The memory device of Claim 5, further comprising a dielectric pillar structure comprising a cylindrical portion having a cylindrical shape and further comprising a rim portion that protrudes outward from the cylindrical portion and contacting the dielectric material plate, wherein a cylindrical surface of the dielectric material plate is laterally offset from a cylindrical surface of the cylindrical portion by a uniform offset distance.
8. The memory device of Claim 5, wherein: the dielectric material plate comprises silicon nitride; the dielectric support assembly comprises silicon oxide; the stepped surfaces comprise horizontally-extending surface segments and vertically-extending surface segments that are adjoined to each other; the horizontally-extending surface segments are arranged along a first horizontal direction; the alternating stack further comprises a tapered surface laterally extending along the first horizontal direction, inclined along a second horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the first horizontal direction, having a top edge located within a horizontal plane, and having a stepped bottom edge that is adjoined to a stepped edge of the stepped surfaces; and the dielectric material plate comprises a tapered portion overlying the tapered surface and having a top surface within a horizontal plane including a top surface of the dielectric material portion.
13. The memory device of Claim 1, further comprising: a first lateral isolation trench fill structure contacting first sidewalls of the alternating stack and the dielectric material portion and contacting at least one planar vertical sidewall of the dielectric connection plate; and a second lateral isolation trench fill structure contacting second sidewalls of the alternating stack and laterally spaced from the dielectric support assembly. Claim 14 depends from claim 13.
15. The memory device of Claim 1, further comprising a layer contact via structure vertically extending at least from a bottommost surface of the alternating stack, through the dielectric material portion, and to a horizontal plane located at or above a top surface of the memory opening fill structure, wherein the layer contact via structure comprises a conductive pillar portion and a conductive fin portion that laterally protrudes from the conductive pillar portion and having a first annular bottom surface segment contacting an annular top surface segment of one of the electrically conductive layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights