DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election filed on 28 August 2026.
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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 28 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no examination burden because the respective groups indicated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 14 July 2026 (hereinafter the Restriction) have the same classification. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the Restriction: it would be necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) elaborates in section 808.02(C) “[a] different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together” (emphasis added). Examiner respectfully submits that the Restriction states that the inventions of the application at hand require separate fields of search (e.g. different search queries), even if the inventions are classified together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected devices, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 28 August 2026.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2007/0051994 A1; hereinafter Song), in view of Chang et al. (US 2024/0312913 A1; hereinafter Chang).
In regards to claim 1, Song teaches a semiconductor memory device comprising:
a substrate (100) [0081];
a bit line (230) [0075] extending in a first direction (e.g. (230) has a width) on the substrate;
an active pattern (104) [0075] on the bit line (e.g. (104) is on the bottom side of (230)) and the back gate strap line, (e.g. (104) is on the top side of (250)) the active pattern including a first side wall (e.g. left side wall of (104)) and a second side wall (e.g. right side wall of (104)) opposite each other in the first direction (e.g. width direction), a first face (e.g. top surface) of the active pattern being opposite a second face (e.g. bottom surface) of the active pattern in a vertical direction, the first face of the active pattern being connected to the bit line (e.g. fig. 12C);
a word line (e.g. one of integrated word lines/gates (195)) [0062] on the first side wall of the active pattern and extending in a second direction (fig. 12C: e.g. in a height direction);
a back gate electrode (e.g. the other of integrated word lines/gates (195)) on the second side wall of the active pattern and extending in the second direction, the back gate electrode being connected to the back gate strap line (fig. 14B: electrically connected through (220));
a data storage pattern (e.g. dual gates (195) form a storage pattern that is connected to, at least, the second face of the active pattern (104)) connected to the second face of the active pattern [0086]; and
wherein
a first face of the back gate electrode (e.g. top surface of integrated word lines/gates (195)) and a second face of the back gate electrode (e.g. bottom surface of integrated word lines/gates (195)) are opposite each other in the vertical direction,
a first face of the word line (e.g. top surface of integrated word lines/gates (195)) and a second face of the word line (e.g. bottom surface of integrated word lines/gates (195)) are opposite each other in the vertical direction.
Song appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of a back gate strap line on the substrate and extending in the first direction, a word line contact plug connected to the word line, wherein the first face of the back gate electrode and the first face of the word line each face the bit line and the back gate strap line, the first face of the back gate electrode is connected to the back gate strap line, and the second face of the word line is connected to the word line contact plug. Chang teaches the limitations of a back gate strap line (e.g. (56)) [0037] on the substrate and extending in the first direction (e.g. (56) has a width), a word line contact plug (108) connected to the word line (gate/word line (32)) [0051], wherein the first face (e.g. top surface) of the back gate electrode (gate/word line (32)) [0025] and the first face (e.g. top surface) of the word line (e.g. gate/word line (32)) [0025] each face the bit line (64) and the back gate strap line (56) (e.g. fig. 17: the top surfaces of gate/word line (32) face (64) and (56)), the first face of the back gate electrode is connected to the back gate strap line (fig. 17: the top surface of (32) is connected to (50)), and the second face (e.g. bottom surface) of the word line (e.g. gate/word line (32)) is connected to the word line contact plug (fig. 17: the bottom surface of (32) is connected to (108)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Song with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chang to have differing arrangements to allow for flexible routing of wires (Chang [0051]).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Chang further teaches the limitations further comprising: a back gate contact plug (50) [0036] between the back gate strap line (56) [0037] and the back gate electrode (32) [0025]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Song with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chang to have differing arrangements to allow for flexible routing of wires (Chang [0051]).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 2. Chang further teaches the limitations wherein a width of the back gate contact plug decreases as it goes away from the back gate strap line (fig. 17: e.g. 50 decreases in width from (56) down to (32)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Song with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chang to have differing arrangements to allow for flexible routing of wires (Chang [0051]).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 2. Chang further teaches the limitations further comprising: a plug spacer on a side wall of the back gate contact plug (e.g. fig. 17: e.g. parts of (34) surrounding (50)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Song with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chang to have differing arrangements to allow for flexible routing of wires (Chang [0051]).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Song and Chang as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, and further in view of Chung et al. (US 2011/0156119 A1; hereinafter Chung).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 2. The combination of Song and Chang appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the back gate contact plug includes at least one of a metal and a conductive semiconductor material. Chung teaches the limitations wherein the back gate contact plug includes at least one of a metal and a conductive semiconductor material [0093]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Song and Chang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chung to tune the conductivity properties of an element by changing the materials of the element (Chung [0063]).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Song and Chang appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the back gate electrode includes at least one of a metal and a conductive semiconductor material. Chung teaches the limitations wherein the back gate electrode includes at least one of a metal and a conductive semiconductor material [0093]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Song and Chang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chung to tune the conductivity properties of an element by changing the materials of the element (Chung [0063]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Song and Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0374862 A1; hereinafter Lee).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Song and Chang appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations further comprising: a dummy active pattern on the back gate strap line, wherein the dummy active pattern is spaced apart from the active pattern in the second direction, and the dummy active pattern is in contact with the back gate strap line. Lee teaches the limitations further comprising: a dummy active pattern on the back gate strap line [0038], wherein the dummy active pattern is spaced apart from the active pattern in the second direction [0038], and the dummy active pattern is in contact with the back gate strap line [0038]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Song and Chang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lee to have a desired architecture/geometry (Lee [0038]).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Song and Chang appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein a length of the dummy active pattern in the second direction is greater than a length of the active pattern in the second direction. Lee teaches the limitations wherein a length of the dummy active pattern in the second direction is greater than a length of the active pattern in the second direction [0038]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Song and Chang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lee to have a desired architecture/geometry (Lee [0038]).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Song and Chang appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations further comprising: a dummy bit line on the substrate, wherein the back gate strap line is between the dummy bit line and the bit line. Lee teaches the limitations further comprising: a dummy bit line on the substrate [0038], wherein the back gate strap line is between the dummy bit line and the bit line [0038]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Song and Chang with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lee to have a desired architecture/geometry (Lee [0038]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Song and Chang teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Song and Chang and Chung and Lee does not appear to teach the limitations further comprising:
a shielding conductive pattern on the substrate,
wherein the shielding conductive pattern includes a shielding conductive plate and a plurality of shielding conductive protruding parts protruding from the shielding conductive plate,
each of the plurality of shielding conductive protruding parts extends in the first direction, and
the bit line is between shielding conductive protruding parts of the plurality of shielding conductive protruding parts that are adjacent to each other in the second direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim (US 2022/0278106 A1) and Tang et al. (US 7,521,322 B2) are made of record as being pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, but not currently relied upon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific Time).
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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights