DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/16/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2015/0008499) in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. 2016/0329340).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 1, 2A, 2B; para. 0045+), comprising:
a source structure (102) disposed over a base (100) (Fig. 2A, 2B; para. 0052-0053);
an etch prevention layer (162) disposed over the source structure (Fig. 2A, 2B; para.0068);
bit lines (BL) disposed over the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1);
a stack structure located between the etch prevention layer and the bit lines and including conductive layers (152, 154, 156) and insulating layers (172), that are alternately stacked (Fig. 2A; para. 0053, 0071); and
a source contact structure (182) extending into the stack structure in a vertical direction and coupled to the source structure (Fig. 2A, para. 0072),
wherein the source contact structure includes polysilicon (para. 0072),
wherein a bottom level of the etch prevention layer and a bottom level of the source contact structure are substantially aligned at the same level (Fig. 2B), and
wherein a thickness of the etch prevention layer is less than a thickness of at least one of the insulating layers (Fig. 2A – thickness of etch prevention layer (162) is less than the thickness of at least the bottommost 172).
Lee teaches wherein the source structure is formed by doping the substrate layer (100) (Fig. 5H; para. 0122) wherein the substrate may be formed of various semiconductor materials (para. 0051); however, Lee is silent with respect to wherein the source structure includes a polysilicon layer, specifically.
Hwang teaches a similar semiconductor device wherein the substrate is formed from polysilicon (para. 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use polysilicon as taught by Hwang as the substrate material of Lee such that the source structure includes a polysilicon layer as claimed for the purpose of; for example, providing a more cost-effective substrate; that is, polysilicon is generally known to be less expensive to form than pure silicon. Furthermore, it is considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Re claims 2 and 3, Lee teaches wherein the polysilicon in the source contact structure includes a dopant (para. 0072) of one of an N-type and a P-type (please note the “one of an n- type and p-type” includes the entire universe of possibilities; thus, Lee is considered to meet the claim).
Re claims 7 and 8, Lee teaches wherein the source structure includes a dopant of one of an n-type and p-type (para. 0053) wherein a type of dopant included in the source structure is the same as or different from a type of dopant included in the source contact structure (please note the “…the same as or different…” includes the entire universe of possibilities; thus, Lee is considered to meet the claim.)
Re claim 11, Lee teaches a slit passing through the stack structure and the etch prevention layer, wherein the source contact structure is disposed in the slit (Figs. 2A, 2B – where the slit is the hole that 182/184 are within).
Re claim 12, Lee teaches a spacer (184) filling the slit and surrounding a sidewall of the source contact structure (Figs. 2A, 2B; para. 0072).
Re claim 22, Lee teaches wherein the source structure is disposed below the bottom level of the etch prevention layer (Fig. 2B).
Re claim 23, Lee teaches wherein the source structure does not protrude toward the stack structure beyond the bottom level of the etch prevention layer (Fig. 2B).
Claim(s) 4-6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2015/0008499) in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. 2016/0329340) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2017/0309635).
Re claim 4, Lee is silent with respect to a source contact pad disposed over the source contact
structure.
Kim teaches a similar device (Fig. 5) including a source contact pad (152) over the source
contact structure (para. 0038).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to include the source contact pads as taught by Kim within the device of Lee for the purpose of providing a connection site to the source contact structure.
Re claim 5, Lee in view of Kim teaches wherein the source contact pad includes a polysilicon layer including a dopant (para. 0038) of one of an N-type and a P-type. (please note the “one of an n- type and p-type” includes the entire universe of possibilities; thus, the combination of Lee and Kim is considered to meet the claim).
Re claim 6, The combination of Lee and Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the source contact structure and the source contact pad include a same dopant; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the source contact structure and the source contact pad to include the same dopant for the purpose of providing an operational device. That is, having the source contact structure and the source contact pad doped with the same dopant would allow proper operation of the device while the alternative would create a diode which would make the device inoperable.
Re claims 9 and 10, Lee is silent with respect to a barrier layer.
Lee in view of Kim teaches a barrier layer surrounding a sidewall of the source contact structure wherein the barrier layer is a Ti/TiN layer (para. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a Ti/TiN barrier layer as taught be Kim for the purpose of preventing diffusion between the metal layer and the polysilicon layer.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2015/0008499) in view of Hwang et al. (US Pub. 2016/0329340) and further in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2012/0119283) (Lee2).
Re claim 15, Lee teaches wherein the etch prevention layer includes silicon oxide (para. 0069), but is silent with respect other materials.
Lee2 teaches the use of silicon carbonitride (SICN) as a material for an etch stop layer (Fig. 5E; para. 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use silicon carbonitride (SICN) as the etch stop material within the device of Lee for the purpose of providing the desired etch selectivity. Furthermore, it considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art of record, nor does the prior art of record otherwise make obvious the limitations of…
Re claims 13 and 14, …the channel structure extending into the source structure…
…in combination with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15, 22, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights