DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Election on 11/7/2025.
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 of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant did not indicate that election was made with traverse or without traverse. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goodner et al. (US 2012/0187533, as cited in IDS 8/7/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Goodner et al. teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Figure 8):
a substrate 12 (Paragraph 0014);
a plurality of storage node pads 20 disposed on the substrate (Paragraph 0025, see Paragraphs 0011 and 0030 regarding plurality);
a capacitor structure disposed on the storage node pads 20, wherein the capacitor structure comprises a plurality of capacitors, each of the capacitors comprises a bottom electrode layer 25 (Paragraph 0036), a capacitor dielectric layer 50 (Paragraph 0046) and a top electrode layer 52 (Paragraph 0048) from bottom to top, and a top portion of the bottom electrode layer 25 comprises a recess 41 (also Figure 5, Paragraph 0040); and
a supporting structure comprising a plurality of first supporting layers 24 (Paragraph 0026) and a plurality of second supporting layers 30 (Paragraph 0028) from bottom to top, and the supporting structure connecting two adjacent capacitors, wherein each of the recesses faces each of the second supporting layers 30 (they each face 30).
Regarding claim 2, Goodner et al. teaches that the bottom electrode layer 25 further comprises an inclined surface (see Figure 5 where portion 41 overlaps laterally with 34, Paragraph 0035-0043), the bottom electrode layer 25 comprises a first thickness below the inclined surface and a second thickness above the inclined surface, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness (Paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Goodner et al. teaches that the inclined surface is located between the second supporting layers 30 and the first supporting layers 24 in a direction perpendicular to the substrate.
Regarding claim 5, Goodner et al. teaches that the bottom electrode layer 25 comprises a first portion (left) and a second portion (right) respectively extending upward, the recess is disposed on the second portion, and a top surface of the second portion 41 is lower than a top surface of the second supporting layer 30 (Paragraph 0039 – 0040).
Regarding claim 7, Goodner et al. teaches that a top surface of the first portion is lower than the top surface of the second supporting layer 30 (Paragraph 0039 – 0040).
Regarding claim 8, Goodner et al. teaches that a top surface of the first portion or the top surface of the second portion is higher than a bottom surface of the second supporting layer 30.
Regarding claim 9, Goodner et al. teaches that each of the first portions (left) directly contacts each first supporting layer 24 and each second supporting layer 30 of the supporting structure.
Regarding claim 10, Goodner et al. teaches that each of the bottom electrode layers 25 comprises a symmetrical u-shaped structure (Figure 8).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2021/0202490).
Regarding claim 1, Cho et al. teaches semiconductor device, comprising (Figure 7):
a substrate 10 (Paragraph 0021);
a plurality of storage node pads 12 disposed on the substrate 10;
a capacitor structure disposed on the storage node pads 12, wherein the capacitor structure comprises a plurality of capacitors, each of the capacitors comprises a bottom electrode layer 80, a capacitor dielectric layer 90 and a top electrode layer 100 (Paragraph 0020) from bottom to top, and a top portion of the bottom electrode layer 81b comprises a recess; and
a supporting structure comprising a plurality of first supporting layers 71 and a plurality of second supporting layers 73 (Paragraph 0028) from bottom to top, and the supporting structure connecting two adjacent capacitors, wherein each of the recesses faces each of the second supporting layers 73.
Regarding claim 2, Cho et al. teaches (Figure 7 below) that the bottom electrode layer 80 further comprises an inclined surface, the bottom electrode layer comprises a first thickness below the inclined surface and a second thickness above the inclined surface, and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
PNG
media_image1.png
760
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Cho et al. teaches that the inclined surface is higher than a bottom surface of the second supporting layers 73 in the direction perpendicular to the substrate 10.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goodner et al. (US 2012/0187533, as cited in IDS 8/7/2025) in view of Nam et al. (US 2019/0206983, as cited on IDS 8/7/2025).
Regarding claim 6, Goodner et al. does not teach that a top surface of the first portion is flush with the top surface of the second supporting layer. Nam et al. shows (Figure 5) that a bottom electrode BE can include a first portion P1 and a second portion P2 (Paragraph 0024) where a top surface of the second portion is lower than a top surface of a second supporting layer 112 (Paragraph 0030 – 0032) and where a top surface of the first portion P1 is flush with the top surface of the second supporting layer 112.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the bottom electrode of Goodner et al. such that the top surface of the first portion is flush with the top surface of the second supporting layer, in the manner as shown by Nam et al., since doing so may create a shape more favorable to facilitating the deposition of the top electrode into the gaps of the bottom electrode to increase capacitance. Also, the limitation of these claims, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the symmetrical bottom electrode shape as shown by Goodner et al. as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art as the particular shape claimed by Applicant is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention (please see In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813