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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 6, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 8, 2024 and January 27, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “216A”, “216B”, “216” and “225” have been used to designate “liner”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “402” has been used to designate both “dummy word line area” and “array area”; and reference character “214” has been used to designate both “gate dielectric layer” and “polar dielectric layer”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because i) Fig. 2 fails to show “402” and “400”; ii) Fig. 3 does not correspond to Fig. 2 because Fig. 2 shows four “230”; however, Fig. 3 shows more than four “230”. 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 Objections
Claims 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: a comma (,) should be removed before the period (.) (claim 5, last line). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
The claimed limitation of “an active region of the substrate”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear an active region of the substrate of which element applicant refers: the array area and/or dummy word line area.
The claimed limitation of “… word line … extending across the active region and the isolation feature”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which dimension of … word line extending across the active region and the isolation feature in which direction applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “the active region and the isolation feature”, as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the active region and the isolation feature of which element applicant refer.
The claimed limitation of “the active region”, as recited in claims 3, 5, 7 and 8, is unclear to the active region of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of “the isolation feature”, as recited in claims 4 and 6, is unclear as to the isolation feature of which element applicant refers.
The term “conformally” in claims 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conformally” 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the upper surface of the gate dielectric layer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is believed claim 8 was intended to depend on claim 7; however, appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the same conductivity type” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claimed limitations of “a first doping concentration” and “a second doping concentration”, as recited in claim 11, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “doping concentrations”, as recited in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muneteka et al. (20230363138) in view of Lin et al. (2016/0005658).
Muneteka et al. show in Figs. 3A-3D and related text a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a substrate 1 having an array area M and a dummy word line area N2 adjacent to the array area;
an isolation feature 4 disposed in the substrate in the array area and the dummy word line area to define an active region 3 of the substrate;
a first word line 21 buried in the substrate in the dummy word line area and extending across the active region and the isolation feature, wherein the first word line comprises first conductive structures 142/143; and
a second word line 20 buried in the substrate in the array area and extending across the active region and the isolation feature, wherein the second word line comprises a second conductive structure 143.
Muneteka et al. do not disclose a first top surface of each of the first conductive structures is below a second top surface of the second conductive structure.
Lin et al. teach in Fig. 9 and related text a first top surface 34/36 of each of the first conductive structures 34/24 is below a second top surface 128 of the second conductive structure 124.
Muneteka et al. and Lin et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a trench gate structure and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Muneteka et al. with the specified feature(s) of Lin et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a first top surface of each of the first conductive structures being below a second top surface of the second conductive structure, as taught by Lin et al., in Muneteka et al.'s device, in order to increase resistivity of the device. Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “the first conductive structures are discontinuously arranged along a word line extending direction”, as recited in claim 2; and “the first word line is formed in a first trench of the substrate in the dummy word line area, and no first conductive structure is in the first trench in the active region in the dummy word line area”, as recited in claim 3.
Claims 2-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
