CTNF 18/618,805 CTNF 89551 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Notes : when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as ( 100 ; Fig 14; [0041] or C 5, L 65-67) = (element 100 ; Figure No. 13; Paragraph No. [0041]) or Column No 5, Line Nos. 65-67). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” or “Column No, Line Nos" shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The primary reference later citation may not be preceded by the inventor tag, wherein the other reference citation will carry inventor tag. These conventions are used throughout this document. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 ( a) (1 ) as being anticipated by Ramaswamy; Durai et al. (US 20200111800 A1) hereinafter Ramaswamy . Regarding Claim 1 , Ramaswamy teaches a semiconductor device ( 100 ; Fig 13; [0076]), comprising ( see the entire document; Fig 13 along with other relevant figures 1-12 that refers back; specifically 0062+], and as cited below): PNG media_image1.png 352 546 media_image1.png Greyscale Ramaswamy Fig 13 a substrate ( 102, Fig 13; first labelled as base structure or substrate ; Fig 1; [0024]); a bit line conductive layer ( 104 , first labelled as bit lines or linear conductive structure; [0026]) extending in a first lateral direction (X-direction; [0025]; x,y,z directions are depicted in Figs 1, 4) substantially parallel to a surface of the substrate ( 102 ); a first insulation line structure ( 122 ; fig 13; detailed in fig 11; [0060]) extending in a second direction (y; see fig 4 [0034] for Y-direction) that is perpendicular to the first lateral direction (x) and that is substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate ( 102 ); first and second channel structures ( ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13); such as the two neighboring 130 shown in Fig 13) that are disposed to respectively contact ( through 106) first and second sides (left right) of the first insulation line structure ( 122 ) and having at least a portion of the first and second channel structures overlapping (overlapping region labelled as 133 in fig 13 ) with the bit line conductive layer (120); first ( 126 ) and second ( 128 ) gate dielectric layers respectively disposed over the substrate ( 102 ) and on side surfaces of the first and second channel structures (126/138); and first and second gate line conductive layers (two 120 ) extending in the second lateral direction (y) over the substrate ( 102 ), and covering at least a portion of each of the first and second gate dielectric layers ( 136/128 ), respectively. Regarding Claim 2 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, further teaches, wherein each of the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13) has a pillar shape (Fig 13; [0078]) extending a direction (z-direction) substantially perpendicular to the surface of the substrate ( 102 ) and perpendicular to the first and second lateral directions (x,y). Regarding Claim 4 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, further teaches, wherein at least a portion of each of the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13) are disposed to face each other in the first lateral direction (x-direction) with the first insulation line (122) structure therebetween (Fig 13). Regarding Claim 5 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, further teaches, wherein the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13) are disposed symmetrically ( depicted in Fig 13) to each other with respect to the first insulation line structure ( 122 ). Regarding Claim 7 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, further teaches, (the device) further comprising: first and second storage node electrode layers ( two 142 s; Fig 13; [0067]) respectively disposed on the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13); capacitor dielectric layers ( 144 ; [0067]) disposed on the first and second storage node electrode layers; and plate electrode layers ( 146 and/or 148 ; [0067]) disposed on the capacitor dielectric layer. Regarding Claim 8 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, further teaches, (the device) further comprising: a second insulation line structure ( 122 located between third and fourth channels another two adjacent 130 ; Fig 13) disposed to be spaced apart from the first insulation structure ( disclosed in claim rejection 1,supra ) in the first lateral direction (x) and disposed to extend in the second lateral direction (y); third and fourth channel structures ( other two adjacent 130, not cited in claim 1 rejection ) that are disposed to contact first ( right ) and second side ( left ) surfaces of the second insulation line structure ( 122 ), respectively, and having at least a portion of the third and fourth channel structures overlapping with the bit line conductive layer (104; Fig 13; third and fourth gate dielectric layers (other two 126/128 not cited in claim 1 rejection ) disposed over the substrate ( 102 ) to surround the side surfaces of the third and fourth channel structures ( other two adjacent 130, not cited in claim 1 rejection ), respectively; and third and fourth gate line conductive layers (other two 120 not cited in claim 1 rejection ) extending over the substrate ( 102 ) in the second lateral direction (y), and disposed to cover the third and fourth gate dielectric layers (other two 126/128 not cited in claim 1 rejection ), respectively, wherein one of the third and fourth channel structures ( other two adjacent 130, not cited in claim 1 rejection ) are disposed to be spaced apart (Fig 13) from one of the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130,cited in claim 1 rejection ) in a third lateral direction that is not parallel to the first and second lateral directions and that is substantially parallel to the surface of the substrate ( 102 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23 AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy; Durai et al. (US 20200111800 A1) hereinafter Ramaswamy . Regarding Claim 3 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, does not expressly disclose , wherein the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13) are disposed to protrude in opposite directions ( illustrated in Fig 13) from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure (122), respectively, and wherein each of1 the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature. However, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “disposed (of channel structures) to protrude in opposite directions from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a curvature). Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed limitation produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale given that the invention will not function without “disposed (of channel structures) to protrude in opposite directions from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature”. Thus, the claimed “disposed (of channel structures) to protrude in opposite directions from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “disposed (of channel structures) to protrude in opposite directions from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature” is significant, and one of those skilled in the art will recognize that there are myriad applications, structures, device layouts; the claimed limitation of “disposed (of channel structures) to protrude in opposite directions from the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure, respectively, and wherein each of the first and second channel structures has a side surface having a curvature” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “” is not patentable over Ramaswamy. Regarding Claim 6 , Ramaswamy as applied to the semiconductor device of claim 1, does not expressly disclose , wherein the first and second channel structures ( two adjacent 130s ; fig 13) are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction” . However, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ). Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed limitation produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale given that the invention will not function without “wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ” is not critical to the invention. Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ” is significant, and one of those skilled in the art will recognize that there are myriad applications, structures, device layouts; the claimed limitation of ““wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ”” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of ““wherein the first and second channel structures are disposed in a zigzag shape on the first and second sides of the first insulation line structure along the second lateral direction ”” is not patentable over Ramaswamy. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOAZZAM HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30AM - 6:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864 . 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. /MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 May 9, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/618,805 Page 2 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/618,805 Page 3 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/618,805 Page 4 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/618,805 Page 5 Art Unit: 2898 Application/Control Number: 18/618,805 Page 6 Art Unit: 2898
Prosecution Insights