DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s representative informed the office by voicemail on 2/26/26 that the office action mailed on 2/25/26 had mistakes in the Allowable Subject Matter section. This action correctly lists the allowable subject matter.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/2/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because “…less than distance between…” is not grammatically correct and “distance” lacks proper antecedent basis. The limitation should be changed to “…less than a distance between…”
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and inherits its deficiencies.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 19-20 is/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 12 recites the limitation “the bridging material comprises doped polysilicon that is not conductively doped”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the claim simultaneously requires the polysilicon to be doped and to not be “conductively doped.” The specification has not set forth any criteria for how polysilicon can be “doped” in a way that is not “conductively doped”, and it is well-known in the art that “doping” refers to addition of atoms to a semiconductor in order to change its electrical properties. If the Applicant intends for a different meaning of “doping”, the specification has not made it clear what that meaning is.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the limitation “the opposing second-direction ends are everywhere spaced in the second direction from all of the channel-material strings that are in individual of the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the meaning of the limitation is unclear for multiple reasons, largely related to the use of “everywhere” and “all”. First, the second-direction ends are not “everywhere” in the device, so they can not be “spaced…” everywhere. Second, it is unclear if the second-direction ends need to be spaced from the channel-material strings everywhere, or only in the second direction. Third, it is unclear if the claim prohibits any second-direction ends from touching any of the channel-material strings, or if some can connect (e.g. can some touch, if some channel-material strings are in plural of the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, and 13-18 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claims 1 or 16, including:
(claim 1)
intervening material between immediately-second-direction-adjacent of the memory blocks, the intervening material extending in the first direction longitudinally along the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks,
the intervening material in a lowest of the conductive tiers comprising: intervenor material; and bridges extending in the second direction between the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks, the bridges comprising bridging material that is of different composition from that of the intervenor material, the bridges being spaced in the first direction by the intervenor material and extending in the second direction into the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks, the bridges individually having opposing second-direction ends and having opposing first-direction sides that extend between the opposing second-direction ends, each of the opposing second-direction ends terminating within one of the two immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks.
(claim 16)
intervening material between immediately-second-direction-adjacent of the memory blocks, the intervening material extending in the first direction longitudinally along the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks,
the intervening material in the lowest conductive tier comprising: intervenor material and bridges extending in the second direction between the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks the bridges comprising bridging material that is of different composition from that of the intervenor material, the bridges being spaced in the first direction by the intervenor material and extending in the second direction into the immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks, the bridges individually having opposing second-direction ends and having opposing first-direction sides that extend between the opposing second-direction ends, each of the opposing second-direction ends terminating within one of the two immediately-second-direction-adjacent memory blocks.
The other allowed claims each depend from one of these claims, and each is allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896