DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/15/26 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because: 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) requires concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein having the deficiencies cited above has not been considered as to the merits, and the line has been struck out with a horizontal line. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites:
A memory device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate having a fin portion protruding from a surface of the semiconductor substrate;
a semiconductive layer disposed conformal to the fin portion and having a first protruding portion laterally protruding away from the fin portion and along the surface;
a conductive layer disposed conformal to the semiconductive layer and having a second protruding portion laterally protruding away from the fin portion and over the first protruding portion; and
an insulating layer disposed conformal to the conductive layer and having a third protruding portion laterally protruding away from the fin portion and over the second protruding portion,
wherein a length of the third protruding portion is substantially less than 300 nm.
In determining that the claims do not satisfy the written description requirement, the Office has considered the factors as specific in MPEP 2163, including the following:
Actual reduction to practice
Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas
Method of making the claimed invention
Level of skill and knowledge in the art
Predictability in the art
Regarding Factor A and Factor B, the Application does not show actual reduction to practice of the invention of claim 1, or any claim dependent therefrom. There is no disclosure of any specific working example, either in the text or in the drawings, of a memory device broadly, or a DRAM device specifically (see para 3-4 of specification), having the limitations of claim 1.
First, there is no teaching of how information is saved in the memory device. There is no disclosure of any memory storage element (capacitor, charge-storing layer, etc.).
Second, there is no disclosure of how to access information in the memory device. There is no disclosure of a transistor, or parts thereof (such as source region, drain region, channel region, source electrode, drain electrode, and gate electrode) or of any other devices (e.g. diodes) that could allow for accessing, reading, writing of memory information.
Rather, the Application shows generic features of a semiconductor layer 102, a conductive layer 103, and an insulating layer 104 on a semiconductor fin 101a of a semiconductor substrate 101, and shows a generic plug 105 contacting the semiconductor substate 101. None of these features is disclosed as any specific part of a memory device, such as of a memory storage element or of elements used to control memory storage elements, such as a transistor or diode.
Regarding Factor C, Applicant teaches steps to form the generic features discussed in the previous paragraph (see e.g. Fig. 9), but does not remedy the deficiencies discussed in the previous three paragraphs.
Regarding Factor D and Factor E, the level of one of ordinary skill in the art is sufficient to be able to understand what the various layers of the claim are. The art is predictable enough to be able to form said layers. However, the level of the art and the predictability thereof is not sufficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand:
where a transistor is formed in the disclosed and claimed inventions (see e.g. Figs. 5-7);
why forming a semiconductor layer 102 over a semiconductor fin 101a is required, when both are semiconducting;
if somehow the fin 101a was a channel of a transistor, why 102 is present. If 101a was a channel, then 102 is redundant;
if either 101a of 102 is the channel of a transistor, and presumably 103 could be the gate electrode that controls the channel, why and how there not an insulating layer between the channel and the conductor 103. DRAM is typically made from MOSFETs, which have a gate insulating layer between the channel and the gate;
what contact plug 105 connects to. It is not shown connecting to any layer, film, or doped region. It is merely shown on top of the surface of the substrate 101.
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) 1-9 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 the limitation “a conductive layer disposed conformal to the semiconductive layer and having a second protruding portion laterally protruding away from the fin portion and over the first protruding portion”.
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear as to if “and over the first protruding portion” refers to “protruding…” or if it refers to “disposed…”. It is thus unclear what the geometry of the conductive layer must be regarding the protrusion.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an insulating layer disposed conformal to the conductive layer and having a third protruding portion laterally protruding away from the fin portion and over the second protruding portion”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: it is unclear as to if “and over the first protruding portion” refers to “protruding…” or if it refers to “disposed…”. It is thus unclear what the geometry of the insulating layer must be regarding the protrusion.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a length of the third protruding portion is substantially less than 300 nm”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the length is substantially greater than 30 nm”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first protruding portion is substantially longer than the second protruding portion”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the second protruding portion is substantially longer than the third protruding portion”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a first sidewall of the first protruding portion, a second sidewall of the second protruding portion and a third sidewall of the third protruding portion are substantially coplanar”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "substantially" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. “Substantially” is defined as "being largely but not wholly that which is specified” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “substantially” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “substantially” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claims 6-7 depend from claim 5 and inherit its deficiencies.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the contact plug is separated from the first protruding portion by a distance of about 200 nm to about 500 nm.” The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The term "about" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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 term “about” defines a target and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and inherits its deficiencies.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0135901 A1 (“Chang”) and US 2019/0237298 A1 (“Berry”) discuss directional plasma etching. US 2012/0018813 A1 (“Holmes”), US 2020/0006573 A1 (“Lilak”), and US 2021/0242332 A1 (“Ma”) discuss various layers of a gate stack on a semiconductor fin.
Conclusion / Contact Information
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
Prosecution Insights