DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed March 21, 2024.
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 Species A drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5 of current application, Subspecies a drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 8 of current application, and Sub-subspecies I drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 10 of current application, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the configuration where “the plurality of first pad portions are arranged to have a step shape” recited on line 5 of claim 1 and “the plurality of second pad portions are arranged to have a step shape” recited on line 10 of claim 1 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a plurality of first pad portions” recited on line 4 refer to, because (a) while Applicants claim that “a plurality of first pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes” on lines 4-5, it appears that the plurality of first pad portions are simply (arbitrary) parts of the plurality of first gate electrodes rather than portions or structural elements that are formed separately and independently away from the plurality of first gate electrodes, (b) in other words, the plurality of first pad portions 124 shown in Figs. 5 and 8 of current application are merely edge portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes 120 rather than portions that are formed separately and independently away from the plurality of first gate electrodes 120, (c) in this case, depending on how the plurality of first gate electrodes are interpreted, there would not be any plurality of first pad portions, especially when it appears that Applicants have arbitrarily divided a first gate electrode into a first gate electrode and a first pad portion for each of the plurality of first gate electrodes, and (d) Applicants do not claim “a plurality of first pad portions” per se, but rather claim “a plurality of first pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes” on lines 4-5, which appears to suggest that Applicants have arbitrarily divided a first gate electrode into a first gate electrode and a first pad portion for each of the plurality of first gate electrodes, and then claim that the plurality of first pad portions are respectively connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a plurality of first pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes (emphasis added)” recited on lines 4-5 suggests, because it is not clear what the word “respectively” implies since the limitation, when strictly interpreted, suggests that the plurality of first pad portions are connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes rather than each of first pad portions connected to one of the plurality of first gate electrodes.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how “the plurality of first pad portions are arranged to have a step shape” as recited on line 5, because (a) as can be clearly seen in Figs. 5 and 8 of current application, the plurality of first pad portions 124 are simply edge portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes 120, (b) in the Elected species and subspecies shown in Figs. 5 and 8 of current application, the top and bottom surfaces of the alleged plurality of first pad portions 124 are coplanar with respect to the top and bottom surfaces of the plurality of first gate electrodes 120, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation cited above suggests that each individual first pad portion has the claimed “step shape” or the plurality of first pad portions have a step shape collectively, the latter of which does not make sense in that the plurality of first pad portions 124 are discrete and separated from each other to form any contiguous shape such as the claimed “step shape”.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a plurality of second pad portions” recited on line 9 refer to, because (a) while Applicants claim that “a plurality of second pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes” on lines 9-10, it appears that the plurality of second pad portions are simply parts of the plurality of second gate electrodes rather than portions that are formed separately and independently away from the plurality of second gate electrodes, (b) in other words, the plurality of second pad portions 174 shown in Fig. 5 of current application are merely edge portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes 170 rather than portions or structural elements that are formed separately and independently away from the plurality of second gate electrodes 170, (c) in this case, depending on how the plurality of second gate electrodes are interpreted, there would not be any plurality of second pad portions, especially when it appears that Applicants have arbitrarily divided a second gate electrode into a second gate electrode and a first pad portion for each of the plurality of second gate electrodes, and (d) Applicants do not claim “a plurality of second pad portions” per se, but rather claim “a plurality of second pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes” on lines 9-10, which appears to suggest that Applicants have arbitrarily divided a second gate electrode into a second gate electrode and a second pad portion for each of the plurality of second gate electrodes, and then claim that the plurality of second pad portions are respectively connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a plurality of second pad portions respectively connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes (emphasis added)” recited on lines 9-10 suggests, because it is not clear what the word “respectively” implies since the limitation, when strictly interpreted, suggests that the plurality of second pad portions are connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes rather than each of second pad portions connected to one of the plurality of second gate electrodes.
(6) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how “the plurality of second pad portions are arranged to have a step shape” as recited on line 10, because (a) as can be clearly seen in Fig. 5 of current application, the plurality of second pad portions 174 are simply edge portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes 170, (b) in the Elected species and subspecies shown in Figs. 5 and 8 of current application, the top and bottom surfaces of the plurality of second pad portions 174 are coplanar with respect to the top and bottom surfaces of the plurality of second gate electrodes 170, and (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation cited above suggests that each individual second pad portion has the claimed “step shape” or the plurality of second pad portions have a step shape collectively, the latter of which does not make sense in that the plurality of second pad portions 124 are discrete and separated from each other to form any contiguous shape such as the claimed “step shape”.
(7) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitations “a vertical contact passing through any one of the plurality of first pad portions, first extension portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of first pad portions, any one of the plurality of second pad portions, and second extension portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of second pad portions, to extend in the first direction (emphases added)” suggest, because (a) due to the multiple usage of the phrase “any one”, the limitation cited above does not appear to make sense, (b) firstly, it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed vertical contact passes through one of the plurality of first pad portions or all of the plurality of first pad portions; it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed vertical contact passes through one of the first extension portions or all of the first extension portions; it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed vertical contact passes through one of the plurality of second pad portions or all of the plurality of second pad portions; and it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed vertical contact passes through one of the second extension portions or all of the second extension portions, (c) secondly, it is not clear what Applicants claim by the limitations “first extension portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of first pad portions” and “second extension portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of second pad portions” since (i) it is not clear how the first/second extension portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes can be arranged below the plurality of first/second pad portions, which are respectively connected to the first/second gate electrodes as recited on lines 4-5 and 9-10, and (ii) in other words, it appears that Applicants claim that the plurality of first/second gate electrodes, the first/second extension portions and the first/second pad portions form meandering three dimensional structures with varying heights or multiple levels contradictory to the horizontal, single-level structures of the first/second gate electrodes shown in Fig. 5 of current application, and (d) thirdly, when the vertical contract passes through the first/second extension portions of the plurality of first/second gate electrodes, the vertical contact does not pass through any one of the plurality of first/second pad portions, in which case the limitations “below the any one of the plurality of first pad portions” and “below the any one of the plurality of second pad portions” lack antecedent bases unless the vertical contact passes through both the first/second extension portions and the first/second pad portions simultaneously.
(8) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “first extension portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes” recited on lines 13-14 and the “second extension portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes” recited on liens 15-16 refer to, because (a) as discussed above with regard to the first/second pad portions, it appears that Applicants may have arbitrarily divided a first/second gate electrode into a first/second gate electrode and a first/second pad for each of the first/second gate electrodes, (b) likewise, it appears that, by citing the limitation above, Applicants may have arbitrarily divided a first/second gate electrode into a first/second gate electrode, a first/second extension portion and a first/second pad, (c) therefore, without Applicants’ specifically claiming what the first/second extension portion and the first/second pad portion refer to, the combined structure of the first/second gate electrode, the first/second extension portion and the first/second pad portion can be interpreted as a single first/second gate electrode, and (d) Applicants do not claim first/second extension portions per se, but rather claim that the claimed vertical contact passes through the first/second extension portion, and therefore, without Applicants’ specifically claiming what the first/second extension portions of the first/second gate electrodes refer to, one cannot unambiguously determine whether the vertical contact passes through the first/second extension portions of the first/second gate electrodes, or the vertical contact passes through the first/second gate electrodes themselves.
Claims 2-10 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-10 are also indefinite.
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 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 11,171,116)
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a memory device (Fig. 5) comprising: a first cell array stack (CELL 1) including a plurality of first gate electrodes (230 or 231-238) (col. 10, line 2) arranged to be apart from each other in a first direction (vertical or Z direction), a first channel structure (CH1) (col. 10, line 8) passing through the plurality of first gate electrodes, and a plurality of first pad portions (edge portions of 230 or 231-238) respectively (electrically) connected to the plurality of first gate electrodes (230 or 231-238), because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the limitation “a plurality of first pad portions” is indefinite since it appears that Applicants have arbitrarily divided gate electrodes into a plurality of first gate electrodes and a plurality of first pad portions, (b) Applicants do not specifically claim what “pad portions” refer to, what they are made of, and what they look like, and (c) therefore, edge portions of the first gate electrodes 230 or 231-238 can be referred to as “a plurality of first pad portions”, wherein the plurality of first pad portions are arranged to have a step shape, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections since it is not clear whether a single first pad portion has the claimed step shape, or the plurality of first pad portions collectively have the step shape, which does not make sense in that discrete first pad portions cannot have a step shape, which implies a continuous structure or shape, (b) the first gate electrodes 230 or 231-238 of Park have different lateral lengths in the X direction similar to Applicants’ first gate electrodes in Fig. 5 of current application, and (c) therefore, if Applicants’ plurality of first pad portions have a step shape, the first pad portions of Park should also have the claimed step shape; a second cell array stack (CELL 2) disposed on the first cell array stack, wherein the second cell array stack includes a plurality of second gate electrodes (330 or 331-338) (col. 14, line 1) arranged to be apart from each other in the first direction, a second channel structure (CH2) (col. 14, lines 5-6) passing through the plurality of second gate electrodes, and a plurality of second pad portions (edge portions of 330 or 331-338) respectively (electrically) connected to the plurality of second gate electrodes, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the limitation “a plurality of second pad portions” is indefinite since it appears that Applicants have arbitrarily divided gate electrodes into a plurality of second gate electrodes and a plurality of second pad portions, (b) Applicants do not specifically claim what “pad portions” refer to, what they are made of, and what they look like, and (c) therefore, edge portions of the second gate electrodes 330 or 331-338 can be referred to as “a plurality of second pad portions”, wherein the plurality of second pad portions are arranged to have a step shape, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections since it is not clear whether a single second pad portion has the claimed step shape, or the plurality of second pad portions collectively have the step shape, which does not make sense in that discrete second pad portions cannot have a step shape, which implies a continuous structure or shape, (b) the second gate electrodes 330 or 331-338 of Park have different lateral lengths in the X direction similar to Applicants’ second gate electrodes, and (c) therefore, if Applicants’ plurality of second pad portions in Fig. 5 of current application have a step shape, the second pad portions of Park should also have the claimed step shape, and wherein the plurality of second pad portions overlap the plurality of first pad portions in the first direction (vertical or Z direction); because the CELL 1 and the CELL 2 are substantially symmetrically arranged along the dotted lines between them, and a vertical contact (261) (col. 10, line 12) passing through any one of the plurality of first pad portions, first extension portions of the plurality of first gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of first pad portions, any one of the plurality of second pad portions, and second extension portions of the plurality of second gate electrodes arranged below the any one of the plurality of second pad portions, to extend in the first direction, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, (b) the first through contact plug 261 shown in Fig. 5 of Park passes through the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeong et al. (US 11,910,600)
Byun et al. (US 12,207,463)
Choi et al. (US 11,581,297)
Nakatsuka et al. (US 12,463,164)
Maejima (US 11,967,380)
Park et al. (US 2022/0157754)
Oh et al. (US 11,239,209)
Yada et al. (US 10,957,680)
Uryu et al. (US 10,879,260)
Kanamori et al. (US 11,289,507)
Kwon et al. (US 11,805,655)
Kim et al. (US 9,214,569)
Sung et al. (US 2022/0077129)
Park (US 10,734,371)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights