Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/903,907

SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Sep 06, 2022
Examiner
GREAVING, JASON JAMES
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
SK Hynix Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
95%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 95% — above average
95%
Career Allow Rate
41 granted / 43 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
64
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
48.1%
+8.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.4%
-10.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 43 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 16 December 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-15 are pending in this application. Claim 5 has been cancelled and Claims 4, 7-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-3, 6 are examined in this application. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). 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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Applicant’s Amendment has addressed the ambiguity in Claim 6. Therefore, the previous 112b rejection of Claim 6 is withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do et. al (US 2016/0079524 A1) (newly cited) in view of Manfrini et. al (US 2021/0098530 A1) (of record) and Schravendijk et. al (US 2020/0152452 A1) (of record) Regarding Claim 1, Do discloses (as shown in Fig. D) A semiconductor device ([0047] FIGS. 3A to 3D are cross-sectional views illustrating a method for fabricating a semiconductor device) ([0083] The memory unit 1010 may include one or more of the above-described semiconductor devices in accordance with the implementations) comprising: a memory cell ([0048] Referring to FIG. 3A, a predefined structure, e.g., a substrate 11 where a switching element (not shown) is formed is provided. Herein, the switching element is for selecting a predetermined unit cell in the semiconductor device including a plurality of unit cells) disposed over a substrate ([0049] first inter-layer dielectric layer 12) and including a variable resistance layer ([0051] Subsequently, variable resistance elements M); a protection layer ([0072] For example, the first aluminum nitride layer 17 may be or include a stacked structure of the aluminum nitride layer 17A containing carbon and oxygen) disposed on side surfaces of the memory cell (M) and an upper surface of the substrate (12) on which the memory cell (M) is not disposed; ([0072] A surface of the first aluminum nitride layer 17 coupled with the variable resistance elements M may be converted to an aluminum nitride layer 17A containing carbon and oxygen through the thermal process.) (See Fig. 3D, showing the aluminum nitride layer 17A containing carbon and oxygen on the sidewalls of the variable resistance elements M and on the top surface of the dielectric layer 12) a first encapsulation layer ([0072] aluminum nitride layer 17 containing carbon) disposed on the memory cell (M) and the protection layer (17A), (See Fig. 3D, showing the aluminum nitride layer 17 on the aluminum nitride layer 17A containing carbon and oxygen which is on the variable resistance elements M) an additional protection layer ([0073] the second aluminum nitride layer (AlN) 18) disposed on the first encapsulation layer (17); (See Fig. 3D, showing the aluminum nitride layer 18 on the aluminum nitride layer 17) and a second encapsulation layer ([0074] second inter-layer dielectric layer 19) disposed on the additional protection layer (18), ([0074] Referring to FIG. 3D, a second inter-layer dielectric layer 19 may be formed over the second aluminum nitride layer 18) However, Do fails to disclose a selector layer; wherein the protection layer (17A) includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium. wherein the additional protection layer (18) includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium. Manfrini discloses (as shown in Fig. 23) a selector layer ([0072] tunnel junction selector 150); and the protection layer ([0072] dielectric capping layer 220) is disposed on an upper surface of the substrate ([0067] substrate 100) on which the memory cell ([0061] MRAM cell 20 and MRAM cell 25) is not disposed (See Fig. 23, showing the conformally deposited capping layer 220 extending on the surface above substrate 100 where there is no memory cell 20, 25) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Do and Manfrini. Manfrini teaches that the selector layer (150) is placed in series with the MTJ tunnel structure (130) in a single pillar in order to save space and the increase density of memory cells. ([0062] Because the tunnel junction selector 150 is placed in series with the MTJ structure 130 in a single pillar, cell size of the MRAM cells may be decreased. As a result, the spacing between MRAM cells may also be decreased and the density of the MRAM device may increase.) It would have been obvious to place the selector layer placed in series with the MTJ tunnel structure (130) in a single pillar in order to save space and the increase density of MRAM memory cells in Do ([0096] The nonvolatile memory may include … a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), a memory with similar functions.). However, Manfrini fails to disclose wherein the protection layer (220) includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium, and wherein the additional protection layer includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium. Schravendijk discloses (as shown in Fig. 2A) wherein the protection layer ([0040] conformal encapsulation layer 109) includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium. ([0004] In various embodiments, the method further includes exposing the encapsulation layer to a post-treatment process at a temperature less than 300° C… [0005] For example, in some embodiments, the post-treatment process includes exposing the substrate to a post-treatment gas and igniting a second plasma without a reactant... In some embodiments, the post-treatment gas is any one of nitrogen, ammonia, helium, argon, and combinations thereof.) ([0087] It is believed that periodic exposure to longer durations of plasma with inert gas reduces hydrogen content of the deposited encapsulation layer. The upper region of the encapsulation layer may have reduced hydrogen content. For example, in some embodiments, the top about 25 Å to about 30 Å of the encapsulation layer may have reduced hydrogen content.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of You in view of Manfrini and Schravendijk. Schravendijk teaches that the post-treatment in helium reduces hydrogen content in the encapsulation layer, improving the quality of the encapsulation layer. Manfrini teaches that the capping layer may be formed by a PECVD process. ([0056] In accordance with some embodiments, dielectric capping layer 220 is formed of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or the like. The formation process may be a CVD process, an ALD process, a Plasma Enhance CVD (PECVD) process, or the like) Schravendijk teaches that the post-treatment process may be performed on an encapsulation layer performed by a convention PECVD process. ([0083] In some embodiments, post-treatment methods described herein may be used with conventional PECVD of encapsulation layers to reduce hydrogen content and improve the quality of the deposited layers) It would have been obvious to perform the post-treatment in Schravendijk on the capping layer 220 in Manfrini in order to reduce hydrogen content and increase the quality of the film. However, Schravendijk fails to disclose wherein the additional protection layer includes a treated surface that is modified by a material including helium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of You in view of Manfrini and Schravendijk in order treat the surface with a material including Helium. Schravendijk teaches that the post-treatment in helium reduces hydrogen content in the encapsulation layer, improving the quality of the encapsulation layer. It would have been obvious to also perform the post-treatment in Schravendijk on the second capping layer 128 in You in order to also reduce hydrogen content and increase the quality of the additional protective film. Regarding Claim 2, Manfrini further discloses (as shown in Fig. 23) wherein the protection layer (220) is structured to prevent energy transfer to the selector layer (150). ([0056] dielectric capping layer 220 is formed of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or the like) Schravendijk further discloses (as shown in Fig. 2A) wherein the protection layer (109) is structured to prevent material diffusion to the variable resistance layer. ([0040] A conventional encapsulation layer 109 may include hydrogen 115, which may diffuse into the magnetic tunnel junction… [0083] post-treatment methods described herein may be used with conventional PECVD of encapsulation layers to reduce hydrogen content) Claim Interpretation Note: The limitation “to prevent material diffusion to the variable resistance layer and prevent energy transfer to the selector layer” is functional language. MPEP 2114(ii) instructs "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) Regarding Claim 6, Do further discloses (as shown in Fig. 3D) wherein one of the first encapsulation layer (17) and the second encapsulation layer (19) includes an oxide ([0074] The second inter-layer dielectric layer 19 may include a single layer including an oxide layer, a nitride layer or an oxide-nitride layer or a stacked layer where two or more of them are stacked.) and the other of the first encapsulation layer (17) and the second encapsulation layer (19) includes an oxide or includes a nitride. ([0072] the aluminum nitride layer 17 containing carbon) Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Manfrini and Schravendijk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Igarashi et. al (US 2023/0083008 A1) and Lai et. al (US 2020/0127046 A1). Regarding Claim 3, Manfrini further discloses (as shown in Fig, 23) wherein the variable resistance layer includes a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure ([0029] magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure 130…[0036] This property allows the magnetic spin of the free layer 138 of the MTJ structure 130 to be put into parallel or anti-parallel mode with the reference layer 134, and thereby control the resistance associated with the MRAM cell) However, Manfrini fails to disclose the selector layer includes a dielectric material and a dopant. Igarashi discloses (as shown in Fig. 6) the selector layer includes a dielectric material and a dopant. ([0045] Note that the two-terminal type switching element 2 as the selector 2 may include, for example, an insulator including a dopant (an impurity)) It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Do and Manfrini to make the variable resistance memory structure of Do be a MTJ structure. Do teaches that the nonvolatile memory can be an MRAM, which is a type of MTJ. ([0096] The nonvolatile memory may include … a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), a memory with similar functions.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for the nonvolatile memory structure in Do, which is the variable resistance memory, to be an MTJ as in Manfrini. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Do in view of Manfrini and Schravendijk with Igarashi in light of the teachings of Lai. Lai teaches that when the selector is made from a doped insulator, the threshold voltage can be controlled by changing the dopant concentration. ([0042] In some embodiments, doping concentrations of the insulators 404 are varied to adjust threshold voltages of the first and second unipolar selectors 108, 110. For example, increasing a doping concentration of an insulator may decrease a threshold voltage of the corresponding selector whereas decreasing the doping concentration may increase the threshold voltage.) It would have been obvious to replace the metal selector (150) with the doped insulator selector (2) of Igarashi in order to control the threshold voltage of the selector. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (on pages 8-9 of their remarks) that “Nothing in Schravendijk suggests that helium can be used to modify the surface of the conformal encapsulation layer 109”. Examiner disagrees with this assessment. Schravendijk discloses (in [0087]) that the hydrogen content is reduced at the upper surface of the encapsulation layer 109 when exposed to inert gases such as Helium. ([0005] For example, in some embodiments, the post-treatment process includes exposing the substrate to a post-treatment gas and igniting a second plasma without a reactant... In some embodiments, the post-treatment gas is any one of nitrogen, ammonia, helium, argon, and combinations thereof.) ([0087] It is believed that periodic exposure to longer durations of plasma with inert gas reduces hydrogen content of the deposited encapsulation layer. The upper region of the encapsulation layer may have reduced hydrogen content. For example, in some embodiments, the top about 25 Å to about 30 Å of the encapsulation layer may have reduced hydrogen content.) Under BRI this is a modification of the surface of the encapsulation layer, specifically a modification of the hydrogen content of the surface of the encapsulation layer. Applicant does not claim the type of modification that the helium performs on the surface of the protective layers. Applicant’s specification says that the surface morphology is modified, creating a flatter surface. ([0058] The protection layer140 may be formed by helium treatment. A physical thickness of the protection layer140 may be very thin. When the helium treatment is performed on the memory cell120, plasma generated from a helium gas may induce atomic migration on a surface of the memory cell120 to modify the surface morphology or profile to be very flat. That is, the protection layer140 may include a layer that is formed by modifying the surface morphology or profile using the helium treatment process.) However, a limitation describing how the helium modifies the surface of the protective layer is missing. Therefore, under BRI any modification, such as a reduction of Hydrogen, at the surface reads on the claim. For these reasons, Examiner believes Schravendijk reads on Applicant’s claims despite applicant’s arguments. Citation of Prior Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fox et. al (“Nano-structuring, surface and bulk modification with a focused helium ion beam”; Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2012 Aug 8; 3:579–585. https://www.beilstein-journals.org/bjnano/articles/3/67) (newly cited): Fox discloses milling a surface with a focused helium ion beam in order to remove surface material from a silicon lamella in order to remove contaminants and reduce surface roughness. ([Abstract] At high incidence angles the helium ions were found to remove surface material from a silicon lamella leaving the subsurface structure intact for further analysis. Surface roughness and contaminants were both reduced by the irradiation process.) Li (CN 102122632 A) (newly cited): Li discloses removing dangling bonds of a dielectric thin film using ions, such as helium, in order to repair damage to the surface of the dielectric and reduce the roughness of the dielectric thin film. ([Abstract] Plasma processing is performed to the dielectric thin film with low k value by removing a dangling bond by a removing ion and restoring the damage of the thin film with low k value, where the removing ion comprises a nitrogen ion, a helium ion or an argon ion, and the restore ion is plasma changed nitrous oxide… The method removes the dangling bond by plasma processing the dielectric thin film with low k value and restores the damage of the plasma by the restore ion, so that the roughness of the dielectric thin film with low k value is effectively reduced.) Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON JAMES GREAVING whose telephone number is (703)756-5653. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm. 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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. /J.J.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 06, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 06, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 16, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588220
1T1R MEMORY WITH A 3D STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575184
CMOS ARCHITECTURE WITH THERMALLY STABLE SILICIDE GATE WORKFUNCTION METAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575158
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING MULTIPLE SPACERS AND A METHOD FOR PREPARING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563794
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES, MEMORY DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557355
STACK TYPE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
95%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+7.7%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 43 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month