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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on April 14th, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there would be no serious burden at least due to the features present in each Examiner-identified grouping having overlapping features”. This is not found persuasive. The restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction /election requirement, mailed on 04/01/2026, is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Accordingly, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-4 have been amended. Non-elected invention of Group II and III, claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-11 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 22nd, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 02/22/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karda (US 2021/0391461, hereinafter as Kard ‘461) in view of Chang (US 2022/0139927, hereinafter as Chan ‘927) and further in view of Kwon (US 2012/0161229, hereinafter as Kwon ‘229).
Regarding Claim 1, Kard ‘461 teaches a semiconductor memory device comprising:
a bit line (Fig. 1A, (104); [0023] and [0084]) extending in a first direction (X) on a substrate (102, [0021]);
a channel structure on the bit line, the channel structure including a first vertical part (118_left; [0035]) extending in a second direction (Y), and a second vertical part (118_right; [0035]) spaced apart from the first vertical part in the first direction and extending in the second direction;
a first word line (108; [0028]) between the first vertical part and the second vertical part and extending in the second direction (Y);
a second word line (108; [0028]) between the first vertical part and the second vertical part (118), extending in the second direction, and spaced apart from the first word line in the first direction;
Thus, Kard ‘461 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first capacitor and a second capacitor connected to the first vertical part and the second vertical part, on the first vertical part and the second vertical part”.
Chan ‘927 teaches a first capacitor and a second capacitor (Fig. 13, (480); [0138]) connected to the first vertical part and the second vertical part (430; [0138]), on the first vertical part and the second vertical part (see Fig. 13).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kard ‘461 by having a first capacitor and a second capacitor connected to the first vertical part and the second vertical part, on the first vertical part and the second vertical part in order to improve reliability and performance (see para. [0005]) as suggested by Chan ‘927.
Thus, Kard ‘461 and Chan ‘927 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a back gate electrode on the bit line on at least one side of the channel structure and extending in the second direction; a back gate insulating film between the back gate electrode and the channel structure; a back gate capping film on the back gate electrode and the back gate insulating film”
Kwon ‘229 teaches a back gate electrode (Fig. 1, (BG); [0047]) on the bit line (18; [0046]) on at least one side of the channel structure (22; [0047]) and extending in the second direction; a back gate insulating film (24; [0047]) between the back gate electrode (BG) and the channel structure (22); a back gate capping film (24) on the back gate electrode and the back gate insulating film (see Fig. 1). Examiner considers the horizontal portion of insulation layer (24) is the capping film.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kard ‘461 and Chan ‘927 by having a back gate electrode on the bit line on at least one side of the channel structure and extending in the second direction; a back gate insulating film between the back gate electrode and the channel structure; a back gate capping film on the back gate electrode and the back gate insulating film for the purpose of allowing for a shorter channel length to increase the sensing margin (see para. [0063]) as suggested by Kwon ‘229.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A (Kard ‘461)
Regarding Claim 2, Kard ‘461, Chan ‘927 and Kwon ‘229 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a height up to an upper surface of the backgate electrode is equal to or smaller than a height up to an upper surface of the first vertical part, measured from an upper surface of the bit line”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a height up to an upper surface of the backgate electrode is equal to or smaller than a height up to an upper surface of the first vertical part, measured from an upper surface of the bit line on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a height up to an upper surface of the backgate electrode is equal to or smaller than a height up to an upper surface of the first vertical part, measured from an upper surface of the bit line in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kard ‘461, Chan ‘927 and Kwon ‘229 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the height up to the upper surface of the back gate electrode is smaller than the height up to an upper surface of the first word line, measured from the upper surface of the bit line”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the height up to the upper surface of the back gate electrode is smaller than the height up to an upper surface of the first word line, measured from the upper surface of the bit line on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the height up to the upper surface of the back gate electrode is smaller than the height up to an upper surface of the first word line, measured from the upper surface of the bit line in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Kwon ‘229 teaches an etching stop film (30; [0047]) between the bit line (18) and the back gate electrode (28) (see Fig. 1). Examiner considers the insulation layer (30) is the etching stop film.
Regarding Claim 5, Kwon ‘229 teaches a lower surface of the back gate electrode (28) is in contact with the etching stop film (30).
Regarding Claim 6, Kard ‘461 teaches the channel structure includes a horizontal part (105; [0026]) connecting the first vertical part and the second vertical part (see Fig. 1).
Kard ‘461, Chan ‘927 and Kwon ‘229 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a thickness of the horizontal part is smaller than a thickness of the etching stop film in the second direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the horizontal part is smaller than a thickness of the etching stop film in the second direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a thickness of the horizontal part is smaller than a thickness of the etching stop film in the second direction in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Kard ‘461 teaches a height up to an upper surface of the first word line (108) is different from a height up to an upper surface of the first vertical part (118) measured from an upper surface of the bit line (104) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Kard ‘461, Chan ‘927 and Kwon ‘229 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a part of the first vertical part overlaps the back gate capping film in the first direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a part of the first vertical part overlaps the back gate capping film in the first direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a part of the first vertical part overlaps the back gate capping film in the first direction in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 9, Kard ‘461 teaches a gate insulating film (112; [0028]) between the first word line (108) and the channel structure (118) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Kard ‘461 teaches a gate separation pattern (106; [0047]) on the bit line, and separating the first word line and the second word line (108), wherein the channel structure includes a horizontal part (105) connecting the first vertical part and the second vertical part, and the gate separation pattern is in contact with the horizontal part of the channel structure (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kard ‘461 teaches a gate separation pattern (106; [0047]) on the bit line, and separating the first word line and the second word line (108).
Kard ‘461, Chan ‘927 and Kwon ‘229 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a height up to an upper surface of the back gate capping film is equal to a height up to an upper surface of the gate separation pattern, measured from an upper surface of the bit line”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a height up to an upper surface of the back gate capping film is equal to a height up to an upper surface of the gate separation pattern, measured from an upper surface of the bit line on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a height up to an upper surface of the back gate capping film is equal to a height up to an upper surface of the gate separation pattern, measured from an upper surface of the bit line in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Kim et al. (US 2020/0227418 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2020/0043941 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2019/0103407 A1)
Sharma et al. (US 2019/0393222 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights