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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 10/3/25.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 11 and 16 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending and subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1 and the Lee reference:
With a new interpretation of the bottom dielectric layer, Lee teaches the amended limitation as set forth below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
Claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., US Publication No. 2011/0291177 A1.
Lee teaches
1. A device structure, comprising (see fig. 3K; also see figs. 2A and 11J):
PNG
media_image1.png
523
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bottom dielectric layer (25C);
a vertical isolation structure (34) extending from the bottom dielectric layer along a direction (e.g. vertical direction), a bottom surface of the vertical isolation structure (34) interfacing a top surface of the bottom dielectric (25C);
a stack structure (e.g. left 27B/28B/35) disposed over the bottom dielectric layer and comprising:
a first silicide layer (e.g. lower 35),
a second silicide layer (e.g. upper 35) over the first silicide layer,
an oxide layer extending (27B) between the first and second silicide layers along the direction, and
a first channel feature (e.g. 32A left) extending along a first sidewall (e.g. right sidewall) of the oxide layer (27B) and extending between the first (e.g. lower 35) and second (e.g. upper 35) silicide layers along the direction; and
a first dielectric layer (31A) sandwiched between the vertical isolation structure (34) and the stack structure (e.g. left 27B/28B/35). See Lee at para. [0001] – [0233], figs. 1-15.
2. The device structure of claim 1, wherein the stack structure further comprises an isolation layer (e.g. topmost layer 27B) over the second silicide layer, fig. 3K
5. The device structure of claim 1, wherein the first silicide layer and the second silicide layer comprise titanium silicide, cobalt silicide, tungsten silicide, or palladium silicide, para. [0176] – [0177].
6. The device structure of claim 1, further comprising: a first polycrystalline semiconductor layer between (28B) the first silicide layer (e.g. lower 35) and the oxide layer (27B) along the direction; and a second polycrystalline semiconductor layer (28B) between the second silicide layer (e.g. upper 35) and the oxide layer (27B) along the direction, para. [0053].
7. The device structure of claim 6, wherein the first polycrystalline semiconductor layer and the second polycrystalline semiconductor layer comprise polycrystalline silicon, para. [0053].
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, 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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3:
Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach:
a composition of the isolation layer is different from a composition of the bottom dielectric layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form a composition of the isolation layer is different from a composition of the bottom dielectric layer, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 4:
Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach:
wherein the bottom dielectric layer comprises zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or silicon nitride.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the bottom dielectric layer to comprise zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or silicon nitride, since it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended purpose as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
29 January 2026
Prosecution Insights