DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/13/26, 06/23/25, 03/26/24, 03/20/24, 10/24/23 were filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanabe et al., Pub. No. 2021/0126008.
Regarding claim 1, Tanabe (see Figs. 4A-5H) discloses a memory device, comprising:
An alternating stack of insulating layers and composite layers that alternate along a vertical direction (32, 42, Figs. 5G, 5H), wherein each of the composite layers comprises a combination of a dielectric connection plate and a plurality of electrically conductive layers that laterally extend along a first horizontal direction and that are laterally spaced apart along a second horizontal direction by backside trenches that laterally extend along the first horizontal direction [0095]-[0101],
Arrays of memory openings 62 vertically extending through the alternating stack (Figs. 5A-5H),
Memory opening 55 (Fig. 5H) fill structures located in the memory openings. Wherein each of the memory opening fill structures comprises a vertical semiconductor channel 50, 60 (Fig. 5H) and a respective vertical stack of memory elements located at levels of the electrically conductive strip, and
Dielectric isolation structures 19, 72 laterally contacting each of the insulating layers and each of the composite layers.
Regarding claim 7, Tanabe (see Figs. 4A-5H) discloses wherein each of the isolation structures vertically extends at least from a first horizontal plane including topmost surface of the alternating stack to a second horizontal plane including bottommost surface of the alternating stack (See Fig. 5H).
Regarding claim 11, Tanabe (see Figs. 4A-5H) discloses a plurality of backside trench 79 [0141] fill structures, each located in a respective one of the backside trenches (Figs. 7A-7G).
Regarding claim 12, Tanabe (see Figs. 4A-5H) discloses wherein each of the plurality backside trench 79 fill structures comprises a respective pair of straight lengthwise sidewalls that are parallel to the first horizontal direction, and each of the plurality of backside trench fill structures is in contact with a respective one of the dielectric isolation structures 72 ([0146], Figs. 7A-7G).
Regarding claim 13, Tanabe (see Figs. 4A-5H) discloses further comprising laterally insulated contact via 76 vertically extending through a respective subset of the electrically conductive layers and contacting a respective one of the electrically conductive layers, wherein the laterally insulated contact via structures are located in a contact region which lacks a staircase in the alternating stack, Fig. 7A-7G, [0146], [0176]-[0175].
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 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 5-6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al., Pub. No. 2021/0126008
Regarding claims 5-6, Tanabe fails to disclose wherein the dielectric connection plate comprises a plurality of laterally-concave vertically-straight surface segments (claim 5) or at least one laterally-convex and vertically-straight surface segment (claim 6). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, design etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, design etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Regarding claims 14-15, Tanabe fails to disclose wherein the dielectric isolation structures comprises at least two prongs that extend in different directions or spaced apart from each other and connected to each other by the connecting portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the isolation structures having two prongs would have been a desired choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the selection of such parameters such as energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, design etc., would have been obvious and involve routine optimization which has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Normally, it is to be expected that a change in energy, concentration, temperature, time, molar fraction, depth, thickness, design etc., or in conbination of the parameters would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art ... such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Claim Objection
Claims 2-4, 8-10 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, since the prior made of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations having limitations of claim 1 wherein each of the insulating layers comprises a plurality of finger portions that laterally extend along the first horizontal direction and laterally spaced apart from each other along the second horizontal direction by the backside trenches, and a base portion that is adjoined to each of the finger portions and laterally extending along the second horizontal direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO P LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1785. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THAO P LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights