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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 5/26/26
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 5 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 8-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 are subject to examination at this time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
In claim 1, the following limitation is indefinite:
“first high aspect ratio (HAR) structure, having recesses formed from sidewalls of the first HAR structure and a second HAR structure, having recesses formed from sidewalls of the second HAR structure, with a silicon-containing sacrificial layer, until a top recess and a portion above the top recess of the first HAR structure and a top recess and a portion above the top recess of the second HAR structure are filled with the silicon- containing sacrificial layer, and the remaining portions of the first HAR structure and the second HAR structure are unfilled with the silicon-containing sacrificial layer”
A high aspect ratio (HAR) structure is a trench. The trench is a recess. It is unclear how a single trench can have plural “recesses”.
It is unclear if “a top recess” is the same or different from “recesses”. The relationship between a top recess and “recesses” is unclear. Where is the top recess relative to the “recesses”? Referring to Applicant’s figs. 4-5 it is not clear where is the claimed “top recess”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the remaining portions”. The relationship between “the remaining portions” and “recesses” is unclear.
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, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui, US Patent No. 9,853,038 B1 (of record) in view of Utsuno et al., US Publication No. 2021/0225642 A1, Wong et al., US Publication No. 2013/0277854 A1 (of record), and Chang[2] et al., US Publication No. US 2021/0391181 A1 (of record).
Cui teaches:
1. A method of forming a semiconductor memory device, comprising (see figs. 5-6; also see figs. 1-25):
…a deposition process…to simultaneously fill a first high aspect ratio (HAR) structure (19’), having recesses formed from sidewalls of the first HAR structure and a second HAR structure (49’), having recesses formed from sidewalls of the second HAR structure, with a silicon-containing sacrificial layer (22L), until a top recess (e.g. upper part of 19’) and a portion above the top recess (e.g. overflow part of 22L) of the first HAR structure (19’) and a top recess (e.g. upper part of 49’) and a portion above the top recess (e.g. overflow part of 22L) of the second HAR structure (49’) are filled with the silicon- containing sacrificial layer, and the remaining portions of (the first HAR structure e.g. bottom part of 19’) and the second HAR structure (e.g. bottom part of 49’) are unfilled with the silicon-containing sacrificial layer,… See Cui at col 11, ln 20–45.
Cui does not expressly teach:
repeating a cycle of a deposition process and an etch process.
In an analogous art, Utsuno teaches:
(see fig. 1) repeating a cycle of a deposition process and an etch process (e.g. steps b-e shows cyclic deposit and etch process) to fill a high aspect ratio (HAR) structure (138), having recesses formed from sidewalls (134) of the HAR structure, until a top recess (e.g. in step c, top recess is 138 above 144) and a portion above the top recess (e.g. overflow part of 146) of the HAR structure are filled with a sacrificial layer (146), and the remaining portions (142) of the HAR structure unfilled with the sacrificial layer. See Utsuno at para. [0037] – [0061].
Cui does not expressly teach:
wherein the first HAR structure has a critical dimension (CD) of between 150 nm and 250 nm, and the second HAR structure has a CD of between 250 nm and 400 nm.
In an analogous art, Wong teaches:
“It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the depth and diameter of the TSV opening 136 can vary with the via type, the application, the design specifications and/or the current technology process node (e.g., 45 nm, 32 nm, etc.) for the integrated circuit system 100. By way of example, the depth of the TSV opening 136 can vary from about 20 microns to about 500 microns and the diameter can vary from about 200 nm to about 200 microns. Generally, the aspect ratio for the TSV opening 136 can vary from about 0.3:1 to greater than about 20:1.” See Wong at para. [0026].
In an analogous art, Chang[2] teaches:
“Features to be patterned using patterned layer 122 may have a desired critical dimension, or width, for patterned layer 122. As an example, the width may be about 70 nm to about 250 nm…These values are provided for example purposes only, as the features to be patterned using patterned layer 122 may have any suitable critical dimension. The width may be the critical dimension achievable for a photoresist film by the lithography system after developing. See Chang[2] at para. [0033]
Wong and Chang[2] disclose ranges that overlap the claimed range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Based on the teachings of Wong and Chang[2], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Chang[1]’s “first HAR structure to have a critical dimension (CD) of between 150 nm and 250 nm, and the second HAR structure to have a CD of between 250 nm and 400 nm” because (i) The depth and diameter of the HAR can vary depending on the application, design specification and/or process node; and (ii) A critical dimension of a 250 nm width is achievable by lithography.
Regarding claim 2:
Utsuno further teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the deposition process comprises a high-density plasma chemical vapor deposition (HDP-CVD) process (e.g. plasma enhanced PECVD at para. [0041])
Regarding claim 3:
Cui further teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the silicon-containing sacrificial layer (22L) comprises amorphous silicon, col 11, ln 20–45, fig. 6.
Regarding claim 5:
Cui is silent regarding the depth of the first and second HAR structures and the thickness of the silicon-containing sacrificial layer.
Utsuno teaches the HAR structure has a depth of greater than 15 µm (e.g. equivalent to 15,000 nm), para. [0028].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Utsuno further teaches the sacrificial layer thickness is a result effective variable for flowability, para. [0034].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to form the silicon-containing sacrificial layer has a thickness of between 20 nm and 300 nm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges and Optimization of Ranges. (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Regarding claim 6:
Cui further teaches:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: selectively removing a carbon-containing sacrificial layer (22L; Cui teaches the sacrificial layer may be diamond-like carbon, etc. at col 11, ln 20–45) filled in a memory hole (49’), figs. 12-13.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Utsuno because to address misalignment in HAR structures. See Utsuno at para. [0065] – [0067], also see para. [0003].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Wong because the dimension of a HAR trench can vary depending on the application, design specification and/or process node. See Wong at para. [0026].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Chang[2] because a width of 250 nm may be the critical dimension achievable for a photoresist film by the lithography system after developing. See Chang[2] at para. [0033]
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Utsuno, Wong and Chang[2], as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lien et al., US Publication No. 2023/0016518 A1 (of record).
Regarding claim 4:
Cui, Utsuno, Wong and Chang[2] teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Cui further teaches:
wherein the first HAR structure (19; corresponding to 86 in fig. 25) is a contact hole in which a word line contact is to be formed, col 27, ln 1–11.
Cui does not expressly teach:
the second HAR structure is a contact hole in which a peripheral contact is to be formed.
In an analogous art, Lien teaches a memory device comprises a word line contact (86) and a peripheral contact (8P), fig. 15A. See Lien at para. [0169] – [0171].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Lien because peripheral contacts can provide connection to switch devices that control a bias voltage to respective word lines. See Lien at para. [0229].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Utsuno, Wong and Chang[2], as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Takahashi et al. US Publication No. 2020/0395408 A1.
Regarding claim 7:
Cui, Utsuno, Wong and Chang[2] teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, but do not expressly teach:
removing the silicon-containing sacrificial layer selectively to a silicon oxide (SiO2)- containing liner layer formed on inner sidewalls of the first HAR structure.
In an analogous art, Takahashi teaches before forming the sacrificial layer, a liner layer such as silicon oxide or silicon nitride can be deposited to line the trenches (49 in fig. 4A). See Takahashi at para. [0105].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Cui with the teachings of Takahashi to perform “removing the silicon-containing sacrificial layer selectively to a silicon oxide (SiO2)- containing liner layer formed on inner sidewalls of the first HAR structure” (i) In order that the liner layer on the sidewalls of the trench can provide protection during etching; and (ii) To process the first HAR structure region separately from the second HAR structure region (e.g. see Utsuno at fig. 6A and 11A).
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 Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
6 August 2026
Prosecution Insights