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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Specie 1, Embodiment I, Sub-species C, Figs. 1A and 1E, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on July 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Action on the merits is as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the trenches" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 5-9 inherit these deficiencies due to there dependency. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has taken this recitation to be “a trench corner of a plurality of trenches of the trench capacitor” or “a trench corner of a trench of the trench capacitor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shih et al. (Shih) (US 2024/0315011 A1 and US 2024/0315012 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
In regards to claims 1-9, Shih (Figs. 1A-4 and associated text) discloses the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Jeon et al. (Jeon) (US 2023/0061185 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses a method for fabricating a semiconductor device (Figs. 2, 3, 9-13), comprising: providing a substrate (item 200); forming a first bit line (item 420) on the substrate (item 200), wherein the first bit line (item 420) extends along a first direction (y-direction); forming a first word line (item 440) above the first bit line (item 420), wherein the first word line (item 440) extends along a second direction (x-direction) perpendicular to the first direction (y-direction); forming a channel structure (item 430) on the first bit line (item 440), wherein the channel structure (item 430) penetrates the first word line (item 440); forming a dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470) over the substrate (item 200); and forming a trench capacitor (item 480) on the channel structure.
In regards to claim 2, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the formation of the trench capacitor (item 480) comprises forming a first conductive layer (item 481) within the trench capacitor (item 480), wherein the first conductive layer (item 481) partially covers a sidewall of portion of the dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470).
In regards to claim 3, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the formation of the trench capacitor (item 480)further comprises forming a first dielectric layer (item 482) covering the dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470) and the first conductive layer (item 481).
In regards to claim 4, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the formation of the trench capacitor (item 480) further comprises forming a second dielectric layer (item 484) over the dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470), wherein the second dielectric layer (item 484) is disposed on a trench corner of the trenches and partially covers a top surface and a sidewall of the dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470).
In regards to claim 5, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the formation of the trench capacitor (item 480) further comprises forming a second conductive layer (item 483 or 485) over the dielectric layer (items 462, 470 or 46 plus 470), wherein the second conductive layer (item 483 or 485) covers the first conductive layer (item 481), the first dielectric layer (item 482) and the second dielectric layer (item 484).
In regards to claim 6, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the first conductive layer (item 481) and the second conductive layer (item 483) are made of a same material (paragraphs 8, 124, 128, 138).
In regards to claim 8, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses wherein the same material is titanium nitride (TiN) (paragraphs 8, 124, 128, 138).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (Jeon) (US 2023/0061185 A1) in view of Lee et al. (Lee) (US 2023/0269931 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) does not specifically disclose wherein the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer are made of a same material (paragraph 8).
In regards to claim 9, Jeon (Figs. 2, 3, 9-12 and associated text/equivalent items) discloses zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), or a combination thereof, but does not specifically disclose wherein the same material is zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), or a combination thereof.
In regards to claims 7 and 9, Lee (paragraphs 30, 48, 49) discloses/requires that first and second dielectric plates/layers include a high dielectric constant. Examiner notes that “high dielectric constant material such as, but not limited to, silicon oxide (SiO.sub.2), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), silicon oxynitride (SiO.sub.xN.sub.y), hafnium oxide (HfO.sub.2), hafnium silicon oxide (HfSiO), hafnium silicon oxynitride (HfSiON), hafnium tantalum oxide (HfTaO), hafnium titanium oxide (HfTiO), hafnium zirconium oxide (HfZrO), zirconium silicate, zirconium aluminate, zirconium oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3), hafnium dioxide-alumina (HfO.sub.2-Al.sub.2O.sub.3) alloy, or combinations thereof” are encompassed by this broad teaching of Lee.
Therefore Jeon as modified by Lee discloses wherein the same material is (can be) zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), or a combination thereof.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Lee for the purpose of having a high dielectric constant material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (KR 20140017272 A) could have been used as a primary reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 August 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights