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 .
Applicants’ response of 6/10/26 has been considered and entered. Amended Claims 12, 15-20 and New Claims 21-22 are under consideration. The rejection of record has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments. The following new rejection is made in view of Applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive for the reasons as discussed below.
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.
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.
Claims 12, 15-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabkin et al (US 2020/0295039) in view of Fluit (US 2020/0332416).
With respect to Claim 12, Rabkin et al discloses a three – dimensional (3D) memory device (Figures 12A and 12B) comprising: a blocking layer (Figure 12B, 44) comprising a high-k dielectric constant greater than 7.8 (paragraph 116); and a wordline (Figure 12B, 46) comprising molybdenum (paragraph 96) disposed on the blocking layer. See Figures 12A-12B and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 91-116.
Rabkin et al differs from the present Claims in that Rabkin et al does not explicitly discloses “the high k dielectric of the blocking layer is resistant to damage by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) chemistry used to form the molybdenum of the wordline , and wherein the ALD chemistry comprises a hydrogen gas reactant and a molybdenum precursor selected from the group consisting of molybdenum dichloride dioxide and molybdenum pentachloride”, as required by the Claims at hand.
Fluit pertains to memory devices and discloses ALD chemistry comprising a hydrogen gas reactant and a molybdenum precursor selected from the group consisting of molybdenum dichloride dioxide and molybdenum pentachloride, and its known benefit of forming a molybdenum layer. See paragraphs 35 and 39-40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the process of Fluit, to form the device of Rabkin et al, for its known benefit of forming molybdenum layers in memory devices. The use of a known process, for its known benefit, forming molybdenum layers in memory devices, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Moreover, with respect to the limitation “is resistant to damage by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) chemistry”, the Examiner notes that the same high-k dielectric materials are used by the Rabkin et al reference, and the high-k dielectric materials would inherently have the same properties. As stated in MPEP 2112,
I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 15, Rabkin et al discloses wherein the blocking layer comprises at least one of a zirconium oxide, a lanthanum oxide, a yttrium oxide or a doped aluminum oxide. See paragraphs 89-91 and 101.
With respect to Claim 16, Rabkin et al discloses wherein the blocking layer comprises at least one of zirconium dioxide, aluminum-zirconium dioxide, or doped zirconium dioxide. See paragraph 91.
With respect to Claim 17, Rabkin et al discloses wherein the blocking layer comprises lanthanum aluminate. See paragraphs 91, 101 and 115.
With respect to Claim 19, Rabkin et al discloses further comprising a nucleation layer or a seed layer disposed between the blocking layer and the wordline. See paragraphs 96-97. Also, see Fluit paragraphs 38-40.
With respect to Claim 20, Rabkin et al discloses wherein the nucleation layer or the seed layer comprises at least one of molybdenum silicide or titanium nitride. See paragraphs 96-97. Also, see Fluit paragraphs 38-40.
With respect to Claims 21-22 and the thickness of the blocking layer, the selection of the optimum thickness would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for its benefit of optimizing the properties of the blocking layer. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (1977). Moreover, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants argue that amended Claim 12 is not a product-by-process claim and should not be analyzed as such. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the language “used to form the molybdenum” indicates a product which is made by a specific process. With respect to arguments that the claim language “is resistant to damage by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) chemistry used to form the molybdenum of the wordline” is a structural attribute of the high-k dielectric material, the Examiner notes that the Rabkin et al reference discloses the same dielectric materials.
I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY
“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that although Rabkin does not disclose the technical problem solved by the claimed invention, the cited references make obvious the presently claimed structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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.
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 ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
August 3, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights