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. DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 3/13/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/25; 12/31/24 and 9/3/24 are being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 7-17 of Wu ( U.S. Patent No. 12,575,404) in view of Boyd et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,245,619). Wu teaches A semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate comprising a first region and a second region; a second outer filing layer comprising: a second concave portion inwardly positioned in the second region of the substrate and comprising a U-shaped cross-sectional profile; and a second flat portion positioned on the substrate and connecting to the second concave portion; a second center layer conformally positioned on the second concave portion and comprising a U-shaped cross-sectional profile; an inner filling layer positioned on the second center layer; and a plurality of second protection layers positioned on two ends of the second center layer and positioned between the second concave portion and the inner filling layer; wherein a top surface of the second concave portion, a top surface of the inner filling layer, and a top surface of the plurality of second protection layers are substantially coplanar (see claim 7). However, the reference does not teach a thickness of the second concave portion and a thickness of the second flat portion of the filling layer are different. Boyd et al. teaches the thickness of the second concave portion (20) and a thickness of the second flat portion (14) of the filling layer are different (see figure 5b, col. 5, lines 20-30, col. 6, lines 11-15) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the thickness within the filling layer, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (i.e.- filling layer), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e.- the thickness within the filling layer) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (FED. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form a thickness of the second concave portion and a thickness of the second flat portion of the filling layer are different in Wu as taught by Boyd et al. because it is known in the semiconductor art to help isolation material adhere to the substrate . Regarding to claim 2, a first outer filling layer, a plurality of first center layers, and a plurality of first protection layers; wherein the first outer filling layer comprises: a plurality of first concave portions inwardly positioned in the first region of the substrate, separated from each other, and comprising U-shaped cross-sectional profiles; and a first flat portion positioned on the substrate and connecting the plurality of first concave portions; wherein the plurality of first center layers respectively and correspondingly positioned on the plurality of first concave portions; wherein the plurality of first protection layers respectively and correspondingly positioned on the plurality of first center layers; wherein a top surface of the plurality of first concave portions and a top surface of the plurality of first protection layers are substantially coplanar (see claim 8) . Regarding to claim 3 , the top surface of the plurality of first concave portions, the top surface of the plurality of first protection layers, the top surface of the second concave portion, the top surface of the inner filling layer, and the top surface of the plurality of second protection layers are substantially coplanar (see claim 9 ) . Regarding to claim 4, a repairing layer conformally positioned between the substrate and the first outer filling layer and between the substrate and the second outer filing layer (see claim 10 ) . Regarding to claim 5, a word line hard mask layer positioned on the first outer filling layer, on the second outer filing layer, on the plurality of first protection layers, and on the plurality of second protection layers (see claim 11 ) . Regarding to claim 6 , the plurality of first center layers and the plurality of first protection layers comprise different materials (see claim 12 ) . Regarding to claim 7 , the plurality of second protection layers and the second center layer comprise different materials (see claim 13 ) . Regarding to claim 8, wherein a bottom surface of the plurality of first protection layers and a bottom surface of the plurality of second protection layers are at the same vertical level. (see claim 14 ) . Regarding to claim 9, wherein a thickness of the plurality of first concave portions and a thickness of the second concave portion are different (see claim 15 ) . Regarding to claim 10, wherein a bottom surface of the plurality of second protection layers is at a vertical level higher than a top surface of the substrate (see claim 16 ) . Regarding to claim 11, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the plurality of second protection layers to a thickness of the second flat portion is between about 0.1 and about 0.8 (see claim 17 ) . Regarding to claim 12, wherein a width of the plurality of first protection layers and a width of the plurality of first center layers are substantially the same (see claim 3 ) . Regarding to claim 13, wherein a ratio of a width of the plurality of first protection layers to a width of the plurality of first concave portions is between about 0.05 and about 0.35 (see claim 4 ) . Regarding to claim 14, wherein a bottom surface of the first protection layer is at a vertical level higher than a top surface of the repairing layer (see claim 5 ) . Regarding to claim 15, wherein a thickness of the plurality of first concave portions and a thickness of the first flat portion are substantially the same (see claim 6 ) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Yara Green can be reached at 5712703035. 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. /THANH T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893