DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-21 are pending in the application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), Form PTO-1449, filed 06 August 2024, 15 January 2025 and 24 June 2025. The information therein was considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 10, 14-15 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,985,827 (‘827). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are recited in the claims of ‘827 with only nominal differences that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the claimed limitations in combination namely, as recited in independent claim 1, a semiconductor device comprising: a first conductor extending in a first direction; and a structure body extending in a second direction, wherein the structure body comprises a second conductor, a first insulator, an oxide semiconductor, and a ferroelectric, wherein the second conductor is electrically connected to the oxide semiconductor, and wherein in an intersection portion of the first conductor and the structure body, the first insulator, the oxide semiconductor, and the ferroelectric are concentrically placed outside the second conductor; and as recited in independent claim 8, semiconductor device comprising: a first conductor extending in a first direction; and a structure body extending in a second direction, wherein the structure body comprises a second conductor, a first insulator, an oxide semiconductor, a second insulator, a ferroelectric, and a third insulator, wherein the second conductor is electrically connected to the oxide semiconductor, wherein in an intersection portion of the first conductor and the structure body, the first insulator, the oxide semiconductor, the second insulator, the ferroelectric, and the third insulator are concentrically placed outside the second conductor, and wherein in the intersection portion, the third insulator is thicker than the second insulator; and as recited in independent claim 15, a semiconductor device comprising: n-layer first conductors extending in a first direction, where n is an integer greater than or equal to 2; and a structure body extending in a second direction, wherein the structure body comprises a second conductor, a first insulator, an oxide semiconductor, a second insulator, a ferroelectric, and a third insulator, wherein the second conductor is electrically connected to the oxide semiconductor, wherein in each of intersection portions of the n-layer first conductors and the structure body, the first insulator, the oxide semiconductor, the second insulator, the ferroelectric, and the third insulator are concentrically placed outside the second conductor, and wherein in each of the intersection portions, the third insulator is thicker than the second insulator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho et al. US 2024/0015978 teach a memory device including an oxide semiconductor vertical channel, word lines disposed on a first side of the vertical channel, back-gate electrodes disposed on a second side of the vertical channel, and a ferroelectric layer disposed between the word lines and the first side of the vertical channel.
Noh et al. US 2025/0159897 teach a ferroelectric layer formed between a word line and a back gate and an oxide semiconductor channel formed between the ferroelectric layer and the back gate.
Lim et al. US 2025/0280544 teach a ferroelectric layer, oxide semiconductor channel, and an insulator surrounding a back gate.
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON BERNSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9011. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached on 571-272-1869. 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.
/ALLISON BERNSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 2/2/2026