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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) and Species B in the reply filed on 8/10/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the two species are directed to the same embodiment. This is found persuasive, and the species requirement is withdrawn. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement between Groups I and II, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Group I (claims 1-1-10) are examined below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 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 1 recites: “a plurality of word lines” and “an edge word line”. The term “edge word line” is introduced only through that phrase rather than as a previously defined member of the plurality. Also, the plurality of word lines creates multiple gaps between word lines. A “first gap” leaves unclear which gap provides the reference width for the ratio.
The same issue regarding the ration propagates into claims 4 and 5 because they further compare the “second gap” to the “first gap”.
Claim 3 is uncertain whether the same ratio must hold relative to every individual word line.
In claim 6, “adjacent to” could be read as requiring both the dummy comb and the plurality of dummy pillars to be adjacent to all three recited things. If the intended geometry is more particular--for example, the comb and pillars occupy different respective relationships--the claim is broader or less precise than the disclosure.
In claim 10, the term “corresponding” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponding” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terminology “in a manner corresponding to” is functional / relational and does not itself describe what spatial relationship constitutes “corresponding.”
The other claims are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TW-200805636 (Sel), cited by Applicant.
Sel discloses (at least Figs. 2A / 2B)
1. (Original) A memory device, comprising:
a substrate SUB;
a plurality of word lines WL1-2n located above the substrate SUB;
a select gate GSL0 / GSL1 / SSL located on one side of the word lines WL1-2n; and
a dummy word line WLd located between the word lines WL1 and the select gate GSL0,
wherein
a first gap between the word lines WL1-2n has a first gap width W1,
a second gap between the dummy word line WLd and an edge word line WL1 of the word lines WL1-2n has a second gap width W1,
a third gap between the dummy word line WLd and the select gate GSL0 has a third gap width W1, and
a ratio of the third gap width to the first gap width is between 0.95 and 1.05 (because first gap width and third gap width are each W1, the ratio is 1.0).
Sel discloses
4. (Original) The memory device according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of the second gap width to the first gap width is between 0.95 and 1.05 (1.0).
Sel discloses
5. (Original) The memory device according to claim 1, wherein the second gap width is equal to the first gap width (W1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TW-201445705 (Ito), cited by Applicant.
Sel fails to disclose
2. (Original) The memory device according to claim 1, wherein a width of the dummy word line is greater than a width of each of the word lines.
Sel fails to disclose
3. (Original) The memory device according to claim 2, wherein a ratio of the width of the dummy word line to the width of each of the word line is between 1.1 and 2.5.
Ito teaches (at least Fig. 4A)
A memory device comprising:
wherein a width of the dummy word line 14 is greater than a width of each of the word lines 12; and
wherein a ratio of the width W2 of the dummy word line 14 to the width W1 of each of the word line 12 is between 1.1 and 2.5.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width in Sel. The motivation would be to increase mechanical strength and to reduce deformation of the word line structure as taught by Ito. Further, determining an appropriate dummy word line width relative to word line would have only involved routine optimization to improve mechanical strength. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,419,058 (Takaki) and U.S. Patent No. 9,899,406 (Kim).
Sel fails to disclose
6. (Original) The memory device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a dummy comb and a plurality of dummy pillars adjacent to the word lines, the dummy word line, and a plurality of ends of the select gate.
Takaki teaches
A memory device comprising:
a comb 114 adjacent to the word lines 112, a plurality of ends of the select gate 131.
Kim teaches (at least Figs. 1A-1C)
A memory device comprising:
a plurality of dummy pillars 130 adjacent word lines 140, the dummy word line 143, and a plurality of ends of the select gate 144.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a dummy comb and dummy pillars in Sel. The motivation would be to create compact, interdigitated cells across the array as taught by Takaki and to improve unequal spacing as taught by Kim. Further, such elements predictably provide structural support, pattern regularity, and / or fabrication robustness in the memory device. See MPEP 2144.05.
Takaki teaches
7. (Original) The memory device according to claim 6, wherein the dummy comb 114 comprises:
a body 113; and
a plurality of extending portions 116 located between the body and the word lines 112 and connected to the body 113.
Kim teaches
8. (Original) The memory device according to claim 7, wherein the dummy pillars 130 are located between the body and the word lines (when combs 114 of Takaki is applied to word lines WL1-2n of Sel).
Kim teaches (at least Figs. 1A-1C)
9. (Original) The memory device according to claim 8, wherein the dummy pillars 130 and the extending portions are disposed in an alternating manner.
Sel discloses word lines, dummy word line, and select gate.
Takaki teaches comb in a repeated structure.
Kim teaches dummy pillars, word lines
10. (Original) The memory device according to claim 7, wherein the dummy pillars and the extending portions are disposed in a manner corresponding to the word lines, the dummy word line, and the select gate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange extending portions and dummy pillars to correspond to word lines, dummy word line, and select gate. The motivation would be to apply a repeated support / layout structures of Takaki and Kim to the ordered arrangement of Sel, yielding the predictable results of respective dummy / support features corresponding to respective gate structures. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0090738 (Park), CN Publication No. 108962901 (Chen), CN Publication No. 119521668 (Wei), CN Publication No. 105742286 (Masaru).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571.272.1236. 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights