CTFR 18/459,795 CTFR 101469 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendments, canceling claim 11, adding its contents to claim 1, and adding claims 13-20, are acknowledged and accepted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nanako (US 20140048859 A1) in view of Fukuzumi et al. (US 20160276363 A1) . Regarding claim 1, FIG. 2A of Nakano teaches a semiconductor device (40; FIG. 1A; column 2, line 51) comprising: a first insulating film (15; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080); a second insulating film (22; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0084); and a tungsten film (17; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) provided between the first insulating film and the second insulating film, the tungsten film having a crystal particle (paragraph 0083), wherein a thickness T (paragraph 0116; paragraph 0129) (thickness before etching can be 60 nm, after etching can be 50 nm) of the tungsten film in a first direction from the first insulating film toward the second insulating film and an average particle size APS (paragraph 0083) (major axis of the crystals can be between 80 nm and 120 nm, explicitly a measurement of particle size, with the average being 100 nm) of the crystal particle satisfy APS/T ≤ 2 (paragraph 0083; paragraph 0116; paragraph 0136) (tungsten is originally deposited at a thickness of 60 nm, but after being etched, the thickness in the trenches is 50 nm). Nakano does not teach the device further comprising: a semiconductor channel extending through the first insulating film, the second insulating film, and the tungsten film in the first direction; and a charge storage film provided between the tungsten film and the semiconductor channel. FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 of Fukuzumi et al. teach a memory hole being formed within the stacked body including the plurality of electrode layers (WL; FIG. 2; paragraph 0034) and the plurality of insulating layers (40; FIG. 2; paragraph 0034), with the electrode layers containing tungsten (paragraph 0196), a channel body as a semiconductor channel (20; FIG. 2; paragraph 0035 provided within the memory hole, and, between the electrode layers and the channel body, a charge storage film (32; FIG. 3; paragraph 0037) is provided. Nakano and Fukuzumi et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten layers and insulated layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have a semiconductor channel extending through the first insulating film, the second insulating film, and the tungsten film in the first direction, as well as a charge storage film provided between the tungsten film and the semiconductor channel. This allows the semiconductor channel to properly channel the memory cells that the tungsten film acts as the control gate for while the charge storage functions a data memory later that accumulates charge injected from the channel body (paragraph 0040). Regarding claim 2, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. FIG. 10A and FIG. 10B of Nakano further teaches the device wherein the thickness T of the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116) is 60 nm or less (paragraph 0116; paragraph 0135; paragraph 0136). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device further comprising a barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) covering the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 5. FIG. 2C of Nanako further teaches the device wherein the barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2C; paragraph 0081) contains TiN (paragraph 0081). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device wherein the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116) contains B (paragraph 0081). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. FIG. 2A of Nanako further teaches the device wherein a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T (paragraph 0116) of the tungsten film (17; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) is 0.3 or more (paragraph 0083; paragraph 0116). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device further comprising: a substrate (1; FIG.2A; paragraph 0079), wherein the first direction is a vertical direction against the substrate (FIG. 2A) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanako in view of Fukuzumi et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyanaga et al. (US 8766250 B2) . Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach wherein the average particle size APS of the crystal particle of the tungsten film is 50 nm or less. FIG. 1A of Miyanaga et al. teaches a metal film (70; FIG. 1A; column 2, line 52) with tungsten (column 4, lines 62-65) where the crystal atoms have a side length of 1 nm (column 12, line 2). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Miyanaga et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices with tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano so that the average particle size APS of the crystal particle of the tungsten film is 50 nm or less. This allows the crystals to be structurally optimized (column 11, lines 58-59). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film being 1 or less. FIG. 1A of Miyanaga et al. teaches a tungsten (column 4, lines 62-65) film of 150 nm in thickness (column 16, lines 8-9) was formed as the metal film 70 (70; FIG. 1A; column 2, line 52) where the crystal atoms have a side length of 1 nm (column 12, line 2). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Miyanaga et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices with tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano so that a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 1 or less. This allows the crystals to be structurally optimized (column 11, lines 58-59) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanako in view of Fukuzumi et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20050029094 A1) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach the tungsten film having a peak at orientation (110) and a peak at orientation (211). Watanabe et al. teach a crystal orientation ratio (211)/{(110)+(200)+(211)+(220)+(310)} obtained when peak intensities of crystal planes (110), (200), (211), (220) and (310) of a surface of the target to be sputtered are analyzed by X-ray diffraction (paragraph 0030). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Watanabe et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have peaks at orientations (110) and (211). Crystals planes (110) and (211) are known crystal planes (paragraph 0047), and when their ratios are controlled, the thickness of the tungsten fil is improved and the generation of unwanted particles is reduced (paragraph 0026) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanako in view of Fukuzumi et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitao et al. (US 10541250 B2) . Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device further comprising a barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) covering the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116). Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach the tungsten film containing B at a first concentration at a position P closer to the barrier metal film and containing B at a second concentration lower than the first concentration at a position Q farther from the barrier metal film than the position P. Kitao et al. teaches a linear film (20; FIG. 15; paragraph 72) formed using a nitride of a metal (which will act as the metal barrier film) and, on top of that, the boron-containing tungsten films (61; FIG. 17; paragraph 95) and the tungsten films (22; FIG. 17; column 12, lines 45-46) alternately formed to form a stacked film (63; FIG. 17; column 12, lines 46-47), with the boron concentration in the tungsten film being lower than the boron concentration in the boron-containing tungsten film(column 12, lines 47-51). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Kitao et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have the tungsten film containing B at a first concentration at a position P closer to the barrier metal film and containing B at a second concentration lower than the first concentration at a position Q farther from the barrier metal film than the position P. This is the result of how boron inevitably diffuses from the boron-containing tungsten film (column 12, lines 47-49) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3, 9, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al . as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeguchi (US 20130316531 A1) . Regarding claim 3, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach wherein the average particle size APS of the crystal particle of the tungsten film is 50 nm or less. FIG. 4D of Takeguchi teaches two layers of tungsten (510, 512; FIG. 4D; paragraph 0045), each layer having a grain size of 30 nm (paragraph 0048; paragraph 0050). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Takeguchi et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices with tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano so that the average particle size APS of the crystal particle of the tungsten film is 50 nm or less. This is the result of the known grain sizes of the tungsten as a result of the formation method (paragraph 0048). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film being 1 or less. FIG. 4D of Takeguchi teaches a second layer of tungsten (512; FIG. 4D; paragraph 0045) has a thickness of 45 nm (paragraph 0045) and a size of 30 nm (paragraph 0048; paragraph 0050). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Takeguchi are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices with tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano so that a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 1 or less. This is the result of the known grain sizes of the tungsten as a result of the formation method (paragraph 0048). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach the device wherein a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 0.3 or more and 1 or less. FIG. 4D of Takeguchi teaches a second layer of tungsten (512; FIG. 4D; paragraph 0045) has a thickness of 45 nm (paragraph 0045) and a size of 30 nm (paragraph 0048; paragraph 0050). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Takeguchi are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 0.3 or more and 1 or less. This is the result of the tungsten potentially having a large grain size as a result of the formation method (paragraph 0048). Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 3. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device wherein the thickness T of the tungsten film (17; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0135) is 25 nm or less (in this case, parts of the film have a thickness of 10 nm). Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. and further in view of Takeguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 3. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device further comprising a barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) covering the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116). Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. and further in view of Takeguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 3. FIG. 2C of Nanako further teaches the device wherein the barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2C; paragraph 0081) contains TiN (paragraph 0081). Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 3. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device wherein the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116) contains B (paragraph 0081). Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. and further in view of Takeguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach the device wherein a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 0.3 or more and 1 or less. FIG. 4D of Takeguchi teaches a second layer of tungsten (512; FIG. 4D; paragraph 0045) has a thickness of 45 nm (paragraph 0045) and a size of 30 nm (paragraph 0048; paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have a ratio APS/T of the average particle size APS relative to the thickness T of the tungsten film is 0.3 or more and 1 or less. This is the result of the tungsten potentially having a large grain size as a result of the formation method (paragraph 0048) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanako in view of Fukuzumi et al. and Takeguchi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20050029094 A1) . Regarding claim 4, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. and further in view of Takeguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Neither Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., nor Takeguchi teach the tungsten film having a peak at orientation (110) and a peak at orientation (211). Watanabe et al. teach a crystal orientation ratio (211)/{(110)+(200)+(211)+(220)+(310)} obtained when peak intensities of crystal planes (110), (200), (211), (220) and (310) of a surface of the target to be sputtered are analyzed by X-ray diffraction (paragraph 0030). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., Takeguchi, and Watanabe et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have peaks at orientations (110) and (211). Crystals planes (110) and (211) are known crystal planes (paragraph 0047), and when their ratios are controlled, the thickness of the tungsten fil is improved and the generation of unwanted particles is reduced (paragraph 0026) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanako in view of Fukuzumi et al. and Takeguchi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kitao et al. (US 10541250 B2) . Regarding claim 8, the combination of Nakano in view of Fukuzumi et al. and further in view of Takeguchi teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7. FIG. 2A of Nakano further teaches the device further comprising a barrier metal film (16; FIG. 2A; paragraph 0080) covering the tungsten film (17; FIG. 10A; FIG. 10B; paragraph 0116). Neither Nakano nor Fukuzumi et al. teach the tungsten film containing B at a first concentration at a position P closer to the barrier metal film and containing B at a second concentration lower than the first concentration at a position Q farther from the barrier metal film than the position P. Kitao et al. teaches a linear film (20; FIG. 15; paragraph 72) formed using a nitride of a metal (which will act as the metal barrier film) and, on top of that, the boron-containing tungsten films (61; FIG. 17; paragraph 95) and the tungsten films (22; FIG. 17; column 12, lines 45-46) alternately formed to form a stacked film (63; FIG. 17; column 12, lines 46-47), with the boron concentration in the tungsten film being lower than the boron concentration in the boron-containing tungsten film(column 12, lines 47-51). Nakano, Fukuzumi et al., and Kitao et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve semiconductor devices using tungsten layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakano to have the tungsten film containing B at a first concentration at a position P closer to the barrier metal film and containing B at a second concentration lower than the first concentration at a position Q farther from the barrier metal film than the position P. This is the result of how boron inevitably diffuses from the boron-containing tungsten film (column 12, lines 47-49) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The applicant argues that for claim 1, the measurement of the major axis is not an equivalent for average particle size. However, the same paragraph (paragraph 0083) states that it’s a measure of particle size, and the presence of such a measurement means that we can infer it’s an average. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the tungsten film must satisfy APS/T<=2 in the finished state rather than any point in the process of making the device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even accounting for that, paragraph 0129 of Nanako shows that even in a finished state, the thickness of the tungsten film in the trenches (50 nm) could satisfy APS/T in those areas regardless . 07-37-02 AIA In response to applicant's argument that semiconductor channel of Fukuzumi et al. does not allow the primary source Nakano to function for its intended purpose unlike the semiconductor channel in the former claim 11 , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamakazi et al. (US 20230051739 A1) concerns a memory device formed from stacking insulators and inserting conductors like tungsten. Higuchi et al. (US 20150371997 A1) concerns a memory device created by lairing first and second insulating films, electrodes, conductive layers, and a semiconductor layer. Miyanaga et al. (US-8766250-B2) concerns a semiconductor device that includes a titanium nitride film and a tungsten film that contains boron . THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB A VLCEK whose telephone number is (571)272-9665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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. /JACOB ALEXANDER VLCEK/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 2 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 3 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 4 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 5 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 6 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 7 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 8 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 9 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 10 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 11 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 12 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 13 Art Unit: 2817 Application/Control Number: 18/459,795 Page 14 Art Unit: 2817
Prosecution Insights