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 .
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.
1. Claims 1-5,7,10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,3-4,6-9 of copending Application No. 18668441 PG Pub US 20250359029 A1 (‘441 from hereafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Pending case claim 1+5+7, maps to US ’441 claim 1,7.
Pending case claim 2, maps to US ’441 claim 6.
Pending case claim 3, maps to US ’441 claim 4.
Pending case claim 4, maps to US ’441 claim 3.
Pending case claim 10, maps to US ’441 claim 8.
Pending case claim 11, maps to US ’441 claim 8+9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
2. Claim 6 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of ‘441.
Regarding pending claim 6, ‘441 shows the thickness of the landing pad on the top surface of the bit line and the oxide film.
‘441 does not show the thickness of the oxide film.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the oxide thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the insulation requirement for the bit lines below. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the oxide thickness within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
2. Claim 8 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of ‘441 in view of US 20250142812 A1 (Song).
Regarding pending claim 8, ‘441 shows the oxide film on the substrate.
‘441 does not show the oxide film overlaps a word line on the substrate.
Song shows (Fig. 1-4) the oxide film (insulating fence with silicon oxide, para 52) overlaps a word line (120T, para 52) on the substrate (110, para 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Song, with overlapping oxide film, to the invention of ‘441.
The motivation to do so is that the selection insulates the word lines from the nearby layer.
Regarding pending claim 9, ‘441 as previously modified with Song shows wherein the bit line (BL, Song) extends in a first direction (Y direction, Fig. 4), and the oxide film and the word line (120T, Song) extend in a second direction (X, Fig. 4).
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-6,10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240324182 A1 (Cho) in view of US 20190043865 A1 (Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Cho shows (Fig. 1-2) a semiconductor device, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
644
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
522
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a substrate (para 21);
a bit line (BL, para 28) disposed over the substrate; and
a landing pad (LP, para 38) disposed over the bit line,
Cho does not show wherein an angle defined by the landing pad and a top surface of the bit line is about 70 to 90 degrees.
PNG
media_image3.png
398
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chang shows (Fig. 7B) wherein an angle defined by the landing pad (22a, para 34) and a top surface of the bit line (16, para 28) is about 70 to 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Chang, with tapered landing pad, to the invention of Cho.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of avoiding short circuits with the adjacent bit line mask (para 34).
Regarding claim 2, Cho as previously modified with Chang shows wherein the landing pad (Chang, 22a) tapers away from the bit line (Chang, 16).
Regarding claim 3, Cho shows wherein a curved surface of the landing pad (Cho, LP) overlaps the bit line (Cho, BL).
Regarding claim 4, Cho shows wherein about 50 to 100 percent of an area of the landing pad overlaps the bit line (as shown above).
Regarding claim 5, Cho shows (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: an oxide film (40, para 32) disposed higher than the bit line (BL) with respect to the substrate (100).
Regarding claim 6, Cho as previously modified with Chang shows a thickness of the landing pad on the top surface of the bit line and the oxide film.
Cho as previously modified with Chang does not show wherein a thickness of the landing pad on the top surface of the bit line is substantially equal to a thickness of the oxide film.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the oxide thickness to be a result effective variable affecting the insulation requirement for the bit lines below. Thus, it would have been obvious to have the oxide thickness within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 10, Cho shows (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: a contact area (area formed between LP and OSP) under the landing pad (LP).
Regarding claim 11, Cho shows (Fig. 1-2) further comprising: a lower electrode (within DSP, para 44) electrically connected with the contact area through the landing pad (through LP as shown in Fig. 2 A-A’ top right).
2. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above further in view of US 20250016991 A1 (Song2).
Regarding claim 7, Cho as previously modified with Chang shows the oxide film, a plurality of landing pads over the substrate.
Cho as previously modified with Chang does not show the oxide film is configured to align a plurality of landing pads over the substrate.
Song2 shows (Fig. 3) the oxide film (38, para 32) is configured to align (para 55) a plurality of landing pads (170, para 43) over the substrate (110, para 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Song2, with landing pad aligning, to the invention of Cho as previously modified with Chang.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of having the landing pad and the lower capacitor electrode aligned with each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the upper surface of the bit line (para 55).
2. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Song.
Regarding claim 8, Cho shows the oxide film on the substrate.
Cho does not show the oxide film overlaps a word line on the substrate.
Song shows (Fig. 1-4) the oxide film (insulating fence with silicon oxide, para 52) overlaps a word line (120T, para 52) on the substrate (110, para 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Song, with overlapping oxide film, to the invention of Cho.
The motivation to do so is that the selection insulates the word lines from the nearby layer.
Regarding pending claim 9, Cho as previously modified with Song shows wherein the bit line (BL, Song) extends in a first direction (Y direction, Fig. 4), and the oxide film and the word line (120T, Song) extend in a second direction (X, Fig. 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights