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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to the Communications dated December 20, 2024, claims 1-20 are active in
this application.
Specification
If there are cross-reference to related applications, please include the
respective patent numbers, if known.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed December 20, 2024 have been considered.
Claim Objections
In claim 5, it appears that the word "various" should be changed to "varies".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 3, the disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term "negative taper."
Claim 4 is rejected because it depends on the problems associated with claim 3.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term “taper angle”.
Claim 9 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term “negative taper to monotonically reduce a lateral dimension”.
Claim 10 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " negative taper to monotonically reduce a lateral dimension" and “positive taper to monotonically increase the lateral dimension”.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term "positive taper to monotonically increase a lateral dimension" and “negative taper to monotonically decrease the lateral dimension”.
Claim 12 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " normalize an on-state current."
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " on-state current."
Claim 15 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " negative taper to monotonically reduce a dimension."
Claim 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " positive taper to monotonically increase a dimension".
Claims 17-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 17, the disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " negative taper for a first vertical portion of their extension to monotonically reduce a dimension".
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected because they depend on the problems associated with claim 17.
Claim 20 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claim 20, the disclosure fails to provide adequate support for the term " normalize an on-current".
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 3 and 4 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 term "negative taper" is indefinite because the specification does not provide a clear definition, parameters, or context to determine exactly what structures are covered.
Claim 4 is rejected because it depends on the indefiniteness of the claim from which it depends.
Claims 5-13 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.
In claim 5, the claim ends with "a separate bias source of a memory controller," but neither "a memory controller" nor a memory device containing one has been previously introduced in the claim preamble or body.
Claims 6-13 are rejected because they depend on the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Claims 14-20 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.
In claim 14, the phrase "a word line having a different dimension along a lateral direction" is ambiguous and unclear because the claim does not specify which direction it is different (e.g., longer or shorter) or provide a reference point for the dimension.
In claim 14, the step "adjusting a voltage applied to a selected word line... in accordance with the different dimension" does not specify how to adjust the voltage (e.g., does a larger dimension require a higher or lower voltage, and by how much?).
Claims 15-20 are rejected because they depend on the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12190931 [‘931]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows.
Present Application
Patent ‘931
1. A semiconductor device, comprising: a first conductive structure (106) extending along a vertical direction; and a second conductive structure (108) extending along the vertical direction, wherein the second conductive structure is spaced apart from the first conductive structure along a lateral direction, wherein the first and the second conductive structures respectively are first and second bit lines that each have a width extending in the lateral direction and varying along the vertical direction.
1. A semiconductor device, comprising: a first conductive structure extending along a vertical direction; a second conductive structure extending along the vertical direction, wherein the second conductive structure is spaced apart from the first conductive structure along a lateral direction; and a plurality of third conductive structures each extending along the lateral direction, wherein the plurality of third conductive structures are separated from one another along the vertical direction and disposed across the first and second conductive structures; wherein the first and second conductive structures respectively are first and second bit lines that each have a width extending in the lateral direction and varying along the vertical direction.
2. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of memory cells coupled with a corresponding plurality of word lines disposed along the lateral direction and coupled between the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure, the word lines coupled with separate voltage sources of a memory controller.
See claim 1. 5. The semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of third conductive structures, the first conductive structure, the second conductive structure, a portion of the semiconductor channel, and a portion of the memory film collectively operate as one of a plurality of memory cells of a memory string.
As can be seen from the above table, claim 1 of the application requires only two structural elements (the first and second bit lines); while claim 1 of the patent requires those exact same two elements, plus an additional third conductive structure (a gate, word line, or interconnect) that bridges them. By omitting the third element, the application covers a much wider range of device layouts than the patent claim. Because the patent claim's device contains all the limitations of the application claim, the narrower patent claim inherently possesses or anticipates the broader application device. Although the claims do not use identical words, the application claim is merely an obvious variation of the patent claim. Therefore, coverage has already been given to the earlier filed patent application.
For similar reasons, claim 2 is rejected over claims 1 and 5 of patent ‘931.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. [US Patent Application #20120119286].
With respect to claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a semiconductor device [fig. 4j], comprising: a first conductive structure [one of 120’s] extending along a vertical direction [z-direction]; and a second conductive structure [any other one of 120’s] extending along the vertical direction, wherein the second conductive structure is spaced apart from the first conductive structure along a lateral direction [x-direction], wherein the first and the second conductive structures respectively are first and second bit lines that each have a width extending in the lateral direction and varying along the vertical direction [120’s have two different structures within them (121 and 123 – 121 is thicker in the z-direction than 123)].
Conclusion
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in
the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
When responding to the Office action, Applicants are advised to provide
the Examiner with line and page numbers of the application and/or references cited to assist the Examiner in the prosecution of this case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
from the Examiner should be directed to Michael T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-1795. Interview agendas may be emailed to Michael.tran@uspto.gov. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM-4:30 P.M.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application.
should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1650.
/MICHAEL T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827 July 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights