DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 5/30/25 of Group I and species A, in the reply filed on 7/30/25 was acknowledged in a previous office action. Claims 18-27 are withdrawn and other nonelected claims (28-34) have been canceled by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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) 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2021/0210425 A1 (“Lee)”.
Lee teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
391
429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches:
35. A semiconductor device comprising:
a discharge interconnection structure (it is reasonable to interpret the discharge interconnection structure as comprising interconnections, insulators surrounding those interconnections, and circuitry that enables discharge; thus, it is reasonable to interpret the discharge interconnection structure as including e.g. one or more of CP1, UM, and parts of 10 such as TR or the source/drain regions of TR such as 3);
a source structure (it is reasonable to interpret the source structure as having semiconductor elements/layers, metallic elements/layers, and/or insulating elements/layers, as the Applicant’s source structure comprises a multi-element structure having diverse materials; thus, it is reasonable to interpret the source structure to comprise e.g. S1 or S1’, which comprises e.g. 16, 17, 18, and 19) on the discharge interconnection structure;
a first discharge contact structure (it is reasonable to interpret the discharge contact structures as having contacts, such as plugs or interconnections, and insulating elements or layers around those interconnections; thus, it is reasonable to interpret the first discharge contact structure as including e.g. part or all of CP2) extending through the source structure electrically connected to the discharge interconnection structure, the first discharge contact structure at a first depth from the upper surface of the source structure (see e.g. Fig. 1C); and
a second discharge contact structure (it is reasonable to interpret the discharge contact structures as having contacts, such as plugs or interconnections, and insulating elements or layers around those interconnections; thus, it is reasonable to interpret the second discharge contact structure as including e.g. parts of P1 such as 22A) disposed within the source structure, the second discharge contact structure at a second depth different from the first depth from the upper surface of the source structure (the uppermost lateral surface of 22A is below the top of CP2, while the lowermost lateral surface of 22A is above the bottom of CP2; the reference frame of the “depth” has not been claimed, but because these surfaces have different locations than the tops and bottoms of CP2, there are many reference frames within which the claimed limitation is met);
wherein the second discharge contact structure is electrically connected to the discharge interconnection structure via the first discharge contact structure (see e.g. Fig. 1C).
36. The semiconductor device of claim 35, wherein the second depth is smaller than the first depth (see e.g. Fig. 1C wherein the bottom of 22A is higher than the top of CP2, and hence the depth of 22A measured from e.g. the top of ST is smaller than the maximum depth of CP2).
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 of this title, 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) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Re claim 39, Lee teaches claim 35 but not explicitly wherein at least one of the first discharge contact structure and the second discharge contact structure includes a material having lower resistivity than the source structure. However, the discharge structures are meant to conduct electricity (para 33, 38) so one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to make them out of a highly conductive material. On the other hand, the source structure may accumulate charges but the contact plug is meant to discharge them (para 38). Furthermore, the source structure may contain insulating layers (see e.g. 12, see para 26, see Fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide such that at least one of the first discharge contact structure and the second discharge contact structure includes a material having lower resistivity than the source structure. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing the discharge structures to electrically conduct and discharge charges from the source structure, while allowing the source structure to have insulating layers.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-17 and 41 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claims 1 or 13, including:
(claim 1)
a source structure on the discharge interconnection structure;
a first discharge contact structure extending through the source structure electrically connected to the discharge interconnection structure, the first discharge contact structure having a first depth; and
a second discharge contact structure positioned in the source structure, the second discharge contact structure having a second depth different from the first depth,
wherein the second discharge contact structure is spaced apart from the first discharge contact structure in a first direction; and
wherein the second discharge contact structure extends in the second direction non-parallel to the first direction and has an elongated shape.
(claim 13)
a dummy stack positioned in the two first dummy regions and the second dummy regions of the source structure;
first contact structures each positioned in one of the two first dummy regions of the source structure, the first contact structures having a first depth; and
a second contact structure positioned in the second dummy region of the source structure and extending into the first of the two first dummy regions and into the second of the two first dummy regions of the source structure,
the second contact structure having a second depth smaller than the first depth, and
the second contact structure electrically connected to the first contact structure through the source structure.
The other allowed claims each depend from one of these claims, and each is allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim(s) 37-38 and 40 is/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: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claims 37, 38, or 40, including:
(claim 37)
wherein the source structure includes a second dummy region disposed between a first of two first dummy regions and a second of the two first dummy regions,
wherein the first discharge contact structure is disposed in the first of the two first dummy regions, and the second discharge contact structure extends from the first of the two first dummy regions through the second dummy region and into the second of the two first dummy regions.
(claim 38)
a peripheral circuit positioned below the source structure; and
an interconnection structure below the second dummy region and electrically connected to the peripheral circuit;
wherein the first discharge contact structure does not overlap the interconnection structure in a stacking direction, and the second discharge contact structure overlaps the interconnection structure in the stacking direction.
(claim 40)
wherein a surface of the first discharge contact structure and a surface of the second discharge contact structure are coplanar with the upper surface of the source structure.
The other claims each depend from one of these claims, and each would be allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant merely argues that Lee does not teach new claim 35 (see 1/7/26 remarks, page 15) without offering specific reasons. This is not persuasive for the reasons listed in the rejection, above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
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