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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication 20220238672) in view of Choi et al (US Publication 20090096014).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a vertical NAND flash memory device comprising:
a plurality of cell arrays (Fig. 1, 190), each of the plurality of cell arrays comprising:
a channel layer (Fig. 2, 170);
a charge trap layer provided on the channel layer (Fig. 2, 150), the charge trap layer comprising:
a matrix having an amorphous structure (Fig. 2, 151 para 74)
a plurality of nanocrystals provided in the matrix (Fig. 2, 152), the plurality of nanocrystals comprising nitride (para 78); and
a plurality of gate electrodes provided on the charge trap layer (Fig. 2, 130).
wherein the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the matrix (para 78-79, Ga matrix and GaN nanocrystals).
Lee does not specifically teach the matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride, such that the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix. It is noted that Lee does teach a charge trap layer as follows: Fig. 2, 150 with base material 151, para 74 amorphous, para 78-80 “at least on of SiO, AlO, MgO, AlN, BN, and GaN. However, it is not limited thereto.” Where it is well known within the art that combinations of a metal oxide and metal nitride in stacked thin film layers yields a metal oxynitride).
Choi teaches a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride (Fig. 3, matrix 140 of charge trap layer 150, para 53 "may be formed of a single metal oxide of group III metal (e.g. Sc, Y, La), group IV metal (e.g. Zr, Hf, Ti), and/or group XIII metal (e.g. Al, Ga), or an alloy thereof. These materials may be expressed as AxOy, AxB1-xOy, AxOyNz or AxB1-xOyNz (‘A’ and ‘B’ are different substances selected from a group of Ti, Zr, Hf, Sc, Y, La and Al).").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee to include a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride as taught by Choi in order to provide higher permittivity and trap energy thus improving the reliability and operability of the device. Therefore, once Lee is combined with Choi, the combination would include the feature of the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix because of the Ga matrix and nanocrystals (Lee - para 78-79, Ga matrix and GaN nanocrystals).
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends.
Lee teaches wherein the plurality of nanocrystals are spatially separated from each other in the matrix (para 83).
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends.
Lee teaches wherein the matrix further comprising metal oxynitride having a permittivity greater than a permittivity of silicon nitride (para 78, GaN has greater permittivity than SiN).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends.
Lee does not specifically teach wherein the matrix further comprises at least one of AlON, ZrON, LaON, AlSiON, HfAlON, LaSiON, AlZrON, LaAlON, HfAlON, or ZrSiON.
Choi teaches wherein the matrix further comprises at least one of AlON, ZrON, LaON, AlSiON, HfAlON, LaSiON, AlZrON, LaAlON, HfAlON, or ZrSiON (para 53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee to include a matrix comprising AlON, ZrON, LaON, AlSiON, HfAlON, LaSiON, AlZrON, LaAlON, HfAlON, or ZrSiON as taught by Choi in order to provide higher permittivity and trap energy thus improving the reliability and operability of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 5 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of nanocrystals comprises semiconductor nitride having a bandgap greater than 1 eV and less than a bandgap of a material of the matrix (para 7, 10).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5 upon which claim 6 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of nanocrystals comprises at least one of AlN, GaN, GeN, SiN, CN, InN, YN, ScN, or ZrN (para 78, GaN).
Regarding claim 7, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 7 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of nanocrystals has a size of about 0.5 nm to about 5 nm (para 82).
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 upon which claim 8 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of nanocrystals has a size of about 1 nm to about 3 nm (para 82).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 9 depends.
Lee teaches wherein the plurality of nanocrystals are formed by heat treating the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix at a heat treatment temperature (para 109).
Furthermore, the present claim is drawn to a device, thus the method of forming the plurality of nanocrystals by heat treating does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of the invention of Lee.
It should be noted that a "product by process claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim 10 depends.
Lee does not specifically teach wherein the heat treatment temperature of the amorphous metal oxynitride is about 900 °C to about 1300 °C.
Furthermore, the present claim is drawn to a device, thus the method of heat treating does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from that of the invention of Lee.
It should be noted that a "product by process claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Choi teaches wherein the heat treatment temperature of the amorphous metal oxynitride is about 900 °C to about 1300 °C (para 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee to include the heat treatment temperature as taught by Choi in order to further refine the manufacturing process of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 11 depends.
Lee teaches wherein the plurality of nanocrystals are buried in the matrix (Fig. 2, 152 within 151).
Regarding claim 12, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 12 depends.
Lee teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of nanocrystals are provided in a boundary between the matrix and a layer adjacent to the matrix (Fig. 2, 152 in boundary between 151 and layers 140/160).
Regarding claim 13, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 13 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the plurality of cell arrays is vertically provided to extend on a substrate (Fig. 1, 190 extends vertically from 110).
Regarding claim 14, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 14 depends.
Lee teaches further comprises a channel hole extending in a direction perpendicular to the substrate is formed inside the channel layer (para 7).
Regarding claim 15, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends.
Lee teaches wherein an inside of the channel hole is filled with an insulating layer (Fig. 2, 180).
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14 upon which claim 16 depends.
Lee teaches wherein each of the channel layer and the charge trap layer is formed in a cylindrical shape surrounding the channel hole (para 71, 90).
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 17 depends.
Lee teaches wherein the plurality of gate electrodes are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 1, 130 spaced apart in direction perpendicular to 110), and wherein each of the plurality of gate electrodes surrounds the charge trap layer (Fig. 1 and 2, 130 surrounds 150).
Regarding claim 18, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 18 depends.
Lee teaches further comprises a tunneling dielectric layer provided between the channel layer and the charge trap layer (Fig. 2, 160 between 170 and 150).
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 19 depends.
Lee teaches further comprises a barrier dielectric layer provided between the charge trap layer and each of the plurality of gate electrodes (Fig. 2, 140).
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a plurality of cell arrays (Fig. 1, 190),
each of the plurality of cell arrays comprising:
a channel layer (Fig. 2, 170);
a charge trap layer provided on the channel layer (Fig. 2, 150), the charge trap layer comprising:
a matrix having an amorphous structure (Fig. 2, 151 para 74)
a plurality of nanocrystals provided in the matrix (Fig. 2, 152), the plurality of nanocrystals comprising nitride (para 78); and
a plurality of gate electrodes provided on the charge trap layer (Fig. 1/2, 130).
wherein the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the matrix (para 78-79, Ga matrix and GaN nanocrystals).
Lee does not specifically teach the matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride, such that the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix. It is noted that Lee does teach a charge trap layer as follows: Fig. 2, 150 with base material 151, para 74 amorphous, para 78-80 “at least on of SiO, AlO, MgO, AlN, BN, and GaN. However, it is not limited thereto.” Where it is well known within the art that combinations of a metal oxide and metal nitride in stacked thin film layers yields a metal oxynitride).
Choi teaches a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride (Fig. 3, matrix 140 of charge trap layer 150, para 53 "may be formed of a single metal oxide of group III metal (e.g. Sc, Y, La), group IV metal (e.g. Zr, Hf, Ti), and/or group XIII metal (e.g. Al), or an alloy thereof. These materials may be expressed as AxOy, AxB1-xOy, AxOyNz or AxB1-xOyNz (‘A’ and ‘B’ are different substances selected from a group of Ti, Zr, Hf, Sc, Y, La and Al).").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee as modified to further include a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride as taught by Choi in order to provide flexibility of group XIII metal materials as well as higher permittivity and trap energy thus improving the reliability and operability of the device. Therefore, once Lee is combined with Choi, the combination would include the feature of the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix because of the Ga matrix and nanocrystals (Lee - para 78-79, Ga matrix and GaN nanocrystals).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication 20220238672) in view of Choi et al (US Publication 20090096014) and further in view of Yoshikawa et al (US Publication 20240124314).
Regarding claim 21, Lee as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 20 depends.
Lee teaches a base material 151 that is amorphous, para 74, metal including Ga or Al, para 79.
Lee does not specifically teach wherein the matrix comprises amorphous aluminum oxynitride (AlON), and the plurality of nanocrystals comprise aluminum nitride (AlN).
Choi teaches a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride (Fig. 3, matrix 140 of charge trap layer 150, para 53 "may be formed of a single metal oxide of group III metal (e.g. Sc, Y, La), group IV metal (e.g. Zr, Hf, Ti), and/or group XIII metal (e.g. Al), or an alloy thereof. These materials may be expressed as AxOy, AxB1-xOy, AxOyNz or AxB1-xOyNz (‘A’ and ‘B’ are different substances selected from a group of Ti, Zr, Hf, Sc, Y, La and Al).").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee to include a matrix comprising amorphous metal oxynitride as taught by Choi in order to provide higher permittivity and trap energy thus improving the reliability and operability of the device.
Lee as modified still lacks the plurality of nanocrystals comprise aluminum nitride.
Yoshikawa teaches the plurality of nanocrystals comprise aluminum nitride (para 50, “AlN nanoparticles”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Lee to include AlN nanocrystals as taught by Yoshikawa in order to provide higher permittivity and trap energy thus improving the reliability and operability of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Lee nor Choi, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests "the plurality of nanocrystals comprise a nitride of a metal that is included in the amorphous metal oxynitride of the matrix."
The materials for the base and nano structures of Lee as stated in para 78-80 are "at least one of SiO, AlO, MgO, AlN, BN, and GaN. However, it is not limited thereto" and "at least one of SiN, GaN, GaO, HfO, ScO, SrO, ZrO, YO, TaO, BaO, and ZnS. However, it is not limited thereto." respectively. The amorphous metal Ga is listed as an example for both the base and nanostructures.
The materials for the insulating film of Choi as stated in para 53 "may be formed of a single metal oxide of group III metal (e.g. Sc, Y, La), group IV metal (e.g. Zr, Hf, Ti), and/or group XIII metal (e.g. Al), or an alloy thereof. These materials may be expressed as AxOy, AxB1-xOy, AxOyNz or AxB1-xOyNz (‘A’ and ‘B’ are different substances selected from a group of Ti, Zr, Hf, Sc, Y, La and Al)." a group XIII metal such as Al or Ga as an AxOyNz would include aluminum oxynitride and gallium oxynitride.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NICHOLAS HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571 272 2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/NICHOLAS LELAND HUTSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
