DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 11/7/25.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (device claims 1-14) and species A/D (Figs. 5, 8A-8B) in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged. The office agrees with Applicant’s assessment that species A and D can be examined together, since the only difference is the gap G that is shown in Figs. 8A-8B but not explicitly shown in Fig. 5. Thus, the Office joins together species A and D.
Claims 16-20 are drawn to Group II and are withdrawn.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Semiconductor memory device having tungsten silicide electrodes
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are objected for lack of proper antecedent basis for certain limitations. The following changes should be made:
1. … a charge storage layer disposed on
3. … wherein a silicon concentration …
4. … wherein a silicon concentration … is higher than a boron concentration …
6. … a charge storage layer disposed on a side surface …
10. … is at least twice a thickness of the second metal layer.
12. … wherein a silicon concentration ....
13. … wherein a silicon concentration of the first electrode layer is higher than a boron concentration ...
14. … is disposed on a side surface of the second insulating film, on an upper surface of one of the first insulating films, and on a lower surface of another one of the first insulating films …
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) 9-10 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the crystal grains having an average grain size of not less than 50 nm”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The limitation “an average grain size” in claim 9 refers to grains in the second electrode layer, but the limitation has already been recited in claim 6 (from which claim 9 depends) wherein it refers to the first electrode layer. This makes it unclear if the grain size of the crystal grains in the second electrode layer need to be the same as the grain size of the crystal grains in the first electrode layer.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the average grain size of the crystal grains in the second metal layer is at least twice the thickness of the second metal layer.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear how the crystal grain in the second metal layer could have an average size that is twice the thickness of the second metal layer itself, because the grains constitute the second metal layer. For example, picture a row of grains all in order, all having diameter D. The diameter would be equal to the thickness of the layer. It is wholly unclear how increasing the diameter to 2 times D would not also double the thickness of the layer. Ultimately, it is not clear how the average size of the grains can exceed the thickness of the layer itself, and how it could be at least twice the thickness of the layer itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2011/0031550 A1 (“Komori”).
Komori teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
361
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Komori teaches:
1. A semiconductor device (see e.g. Fig. 12A) comprising:
a stacked film alternately including a plurality of electrode layers (e.g. SG and WL) and a plurality of first insulating films (e.g. 14, 15, 16);
a charge storage layer (e.g. 48) disposed on the side surfaces of the plurality of electrode layers via a second insulating film (e.g. 43); and
a semiconductor layer (e.g. SP) disposed on the side surface of the charge storage layer via a third insulating film (e.g. 42),
wherein at least one electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers includes a first electrode layer, the first electrode layer being an amorphous layer comprising a metal element and silicon (at least the select gate SGf comprises amorphous Si formed on W and heated to form amorphous tungsten silicide, see e.g. para 111; see para 165, wherein only the geometry of Fig. 12A being a vertical stack differs from that of Fig. 5A discussed in para 111, and it is clear that the teachings of Figs. 5A are meant to be combined with those of Fig. 12A).
2. The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the metal element is tungsten (see e.g. para 111).
4. The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the silicon concentration of the first electrode layer is higher than the boron concentration of the first electrode layer (no boron is disclosed, so its concentration is zero).
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 of this title, 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) 6-8, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of US 6,245,673 B1 (“Okubo”).
Komori teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
6. A semiconductor device (see e.g. Fig. 12A) comprising:
a stacked film alternately including a plurality of electrode layers (e.g. SG and WL) and a plurality of first insulating films (e.g. 14, 15, 16);
a charge storage layer (e.g. 48) disposed on the side surfaces of the plurality of electrode layers via a second insulating film (e.g. 43); and
a semiconductor layer (e.g. SP) disposed on the side surface of the charge storage layer via a third insulating film (e.g. 42),
wherein at least one electrode layer of the plurality of electrode layers includes a first electrode layer and a second electrode layer, the first electrode layer comprising a metal element and silicon (at least the select gate SG comprises amorphous Si formed on W and heated to form amorphous tungsten silicide, see e.g. para 111; see para 165, wherein only the geometry of Fig. 12A being a vertical stack differs from that of Fig. 5A discussed in para 111, and it is clear that the teachings of Figs. 5A are meant to be combined with those of Fig. 12A),
Komori does not explicitly teach: the second electrode layer comprising crystal grains having an average grain size of not less than 50 nm.
Okubo teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Komori that the second electrode layer comprising crystal grains having an average grain size of not less than 50 nm (the tungsten silicide film should have a crystal grain diameter of 0.06-0.1 micrometers, see e.g. col 4 lines 40-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Okubo to the invention of Komori. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing control of the resistance to migration (see e.g. col 4 lines 40-51 and to optimize the resistance of the gate electrode, see e.g. col 1 lines 10-39)
Komori and Okubo together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
7. The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the first electrode layer is an amorphous layer comprising the metal element and silicon (see e.g. Komori para 111).
Re claim 8, Komori and Okubo teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the first electrode layer is a polycrystalline layer comprising the metal element and silicon (see e.g. para 54, wherein WL can be polysilicon; the process described in para 111 when performed in the geometry of Fig. 12A would result in WL comprising tungsten and polysilicon).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
9. The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the second electrode layer is a polycrystalline layer comprising the metal element and comprising the crystal grains, the crystal grains having an average grain size of not less than 50 nm (see e.g. para 54, wherein WL can be polysilicon; the process described in para 111 when performed in the geometry of Fig. 12A would result in WL comprising tungsten and polysilicon).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
11. The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the metal element is tungsten (see e.g. Komori para 111).
13. The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the silicon concentration of the first electrode layer is higher than the boron concentration of the first electrode layer (no boron is disclosed, so its concentration is zero).
14. The semiconductor device according to claim 6, wherein the first electrode layer is disposed (i) on the side surface of the second insulating film, (ii) on the upper surface of one of the first insulating films, and (iii) on the lower surface of another one of the first insulating films (see e.g. Fig. 12A), and
wherein the second electrode layer is disposed (i) on the side surface of the second insulating film, (ii) on the upper surface of the one of the first insulating films, and (iii) on the lower surface of the another one of the first insulating films via the first electrode layer (see e.g. Fig. 12A).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of US 2014/0363942 A1 (“Hong”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori in view of US 6,245,673 B1 (“Okubo”) and US 2014/0363942 A1 (“Hong”).
Komori teaches claim 3, and Komori and Okubo teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claim 6, as discussed above, but neither Komori or Okubo further teaches wherein the silicon concentration of the first electrode layer is 6.0 × 1021 to 1.5 × 1022 atoms/cm3.
Hong teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Komori and/or Okubo wherein the silicon concentration of the first electrode layer is 6.0 × 1021 to 1.5 × 1022 atoms/cm3 (see e.g. para 9-11, 28, 34, 35, 37, 57, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Hong to the invention of Komori and/or Okubo. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of varying the silicon concentration in tungsten silicide in order to optimize the resistivity and workfunction of the electrode (see e.g. para 9-11, 28, 34, 35, 37, 57, etc.).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material having the specific silicon concentration is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori.
Re claim 5, Komori teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention: The semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one electrode layer further includes a second electrode layer which is a polycrystalline layer comprising the metal element (see e.g. para 54, wherein WL can be polysilicon; the process described in para 111 when performed in the geometry of Fig. 12A would result in WL comprising tungsten and polysilicon).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896