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 II in the reply filed on August 04, 2026, is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 03, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because copies of each foreign patent and non-patent literature documents were not included.. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. 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(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 19 is 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 12, which claim 19 depends on, claims the “a plurality of openings along sidewalls of the first plurality of word line plates and the second word line plates. This is interpreted to mean the recesses 315 of Fig 3B along the sidewalls 390 and 391 in the instant application. Further, Fig 4E of the instant application shows storage element material 465 in the recesses previously mentioned.
However, the conductive material forming conductive pillars 580 (Fig 5B) are in different openings 360 (Figs 4A and 5A). Although the recesses 315 are also in the openings 360, two different openings are being used interchangeably in the claim. For purposes of Examination, Examiner will interpret “the plurality of openings” from line 5 to the end of the claim to mean “a plurality of openings through the plurality of word line plates separated from one another by respective dielectric layers.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 12-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tang et.al. (US 20110316063 A1), hereinafter Tang.
Regarding claim 12, Tang teaches a vertical 3D memory device (Fig 16 memory device 500, [0032]), comprising: a plurality of word line plates (Fig 11 materials 1002, 1004, , 1222, 1223, [0044]) separated from one another by respective dielectric layers (Fig 11 materials 1003, 1005, 1007, [0042]) and including a first plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gate 1221, [0044]) and a second plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gates 1222, [0044]); a plurality of openings (Fig 12 cavities 1120, [0043]) along sidewalls of the first plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gate 1221, [0044]) and the second plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gates 1222, [0044]); and a plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) within each of the plurality of openings (Fig 12 cavities 1120, [0043]) and contacting (electrical contact) at least the first plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gate 1221, [0044]) and the second plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gates 1222, [0044]), the plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) comprising a dielectric material (dielectric material, [0046]) formed in accordance with a target memory cell size.
Regarding the limitation “formed in accordance with a target memory size.” One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would form the memory cells as required for the design parameters of the device.
Regarding claim 13, Tang teaches each of the plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) is selectively formed only on a wall of a conformal material (Fig 14 material 1423, [0046]) in accordance with area-selective atomic layer deposition (ALD).
The language, term, or phrase “in accordance with area-selective atomic layer deposition (ALD)”, is directed towards the process of making spacers directly on conformal material. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language “in accordance with area-selective atomic layer deposition (ALD)” only requires a plurality of spacers directly contacting conformal material, which does not distinguish the invention from Tang, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Tang fails to teach the area-selective ALD comprises acetylacetone as an inhibitor, bis(diethylamino)silane (BDEAS) as a Si precursor, and 02 plasma as a co-reactant.
However, the language, term, or phrase “the area-selective atomic layer deposition (ALD)”, is directed towards the process of making spacers directly on conformal material. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language “the area-selective atomic layer deposition (ALD)” only requires a plurality of spacers directly contacting conformal material, which does not distinguish the invention from Tang, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Tang teaches each of the plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]; the material 1424 is on the control gates 1221 and 1222) is grown along a respective sidewall of the first plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gate 1221, [0044]) and the second plurality of word line plates (Fig 12 control gates 1222, [0044]).
The language, term, or phrase “is grown along a respective sidewall”, is directed towards the process of making spacers along sidewalls of word line plates. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language “is grown along a respective sidewall” only requires spacers along sidewalls of word line plates, which does not distinguish the invention from Tang, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Tang teaches each of the plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) is formed in accordance with a target thickness associated with the target memory cell size (the material 1424 has a thickness in accordance with the memory cell size required by Tang).
Regarding claim 18, Tang teaches the target memory cell size corresponds to an active area of a memory cell of the vertical 3D memory device.
Examiner notes the target memory cell size of Tang corresponds to an active area of a memory cell of the vertical 3D memory device of Tang. That is, the memory cell size would correspond to the active area of the memory cell in the device of Tang.
Regarding claim 19, Tang teaches a chalcogenide material (Fig 14 memory elements 1430, [0048]; memory element can be GST, a chalcogenide material known in the art) deposited into each of the plurality of openings (Fig 12 cavities 1120, [0043]) and between a (memory element 1430 is between the unlabeled material 1424 in Fig 14 but can be seen in Fig 15) respective plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) formed in each of the plurality of openings (Fig 12 cavities 1120, [0043]); and a conductive material (Fig 20 conductive material 2001, [0051]) deposited into each of the plurality of openings (Fig 11 openings 1101, [0043]) and contacting (electrically contacting) the respective plurality of spacers (Fig 15 material 1424, [0046]) and the chalcogenide material (Fig 14 memory elements 1430, [0048], the conductive material (Fig 20 conductive material 2001, [0051]) forming a plurality of conductive pillars (Fig 22 conductive material portions 2241, [0053]) configured as a respective plurality of digit lines (Fig 3 select lines 242, [0020]).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et.al. (US 20110316063 A1), hereinafter Tang, in view of Hopkins (US 20140217349 A1).
Tang teaches the conformal material may be selected as SiO2, GeO2, SiNx (silicon nitride, [0046]), or W03.
Tang fails to teach the dielectric material may be selected as A1203, TiO2, or HfO2.
Regarding the choice of using A1203, TiO2, or HfO2 as dielectric material, this particular material would have been obvious to try. Tang teaches the use of dielectric material in the layer touching the memory storage material (silicon oxide, [0046]). Hopkins teaches a broader list of dielectric materials for use in phase change memory cells, including silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and hafnium oxide ([0037]). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the desired properties of the dielectric material would be achieved equally, regardless of which of these materials is chosen. That is, "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421.
Conclusion
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights