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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on January 14th, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 11-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 14th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 3rd, 2023, was filed prior to the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification amendments filed on January 14th, 2026, have been entered.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (2020/0185400 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 1, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches a semiconductor device ([0015]) comprising:
a gate structure ([0017], 40) including conductive layers ([0017], 45) and insulating layers ([0017], 41) that are alternately stacked (see annotated fig. 1);
tapered supports ([0016], 59D) extending through the layers of the gate structure (40),
each tapered support (59D) having a first width (first width, see annotated fig. 1) at a first level (first level, see annotated fig. 1) of the gate structure (40) and a second width (second width, see annotated fig. 1) at a second level (second level, see annotated fig. 1) of the gate structure (40), the second width (second width) being smaller (see annotated fig. 1) than the first width (first width); and
a tapered contact structure ([0016], 75) located within the gate structure (40), between the tapered supports (59D),
the tapered contact structure (75) having a third width (third width, see annotated fig. 1) at the first level (first level) of the gate structure (40) and a fourth width (fourth width, see annotated fig. 1) at the second level (second level) of the gate structure (40), which is larger (see annotated fig. 1) than the third width (third width).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
384
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Regarding Claim 2, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the tapered supports (59D) extend in a first direction (first direction, see annotated fig. 4) and are separated from each other in a second direction (second direction, see annotated fig. 4), in a plane defined by the first direction (first direction) and the second direction (second direction), the first and second directions being substantially orthogonal to each other (see annotated fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein a sidewall of the tapered contact structure (any one of the second sidewalls, see annotated fig. 4) extends in the first direction (first direction) along and contacts sidewalls of the tapered supports (any one of the second sidewalls in contact with 59D, see annotated fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the tapered contact structure (75) comprises: first sidewalls (first sidewalls, see annotated fig. 4) facing each other in the first direction (first direction); and second sidewalls (second sidewalls, see annotated fig. 4) contacting the tapered supports (59D) and facing each other in the second direction (second direction).
Regarding Claim 6, Park (annotated fig. 5) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a portion of the tapered supports (59D) protrudes (portion of the tapered support 59D protrudes into the intruding concave portions of 75, see annotated fig. 5) into the tapered contact structure (75).
PNG
media_image3.png
613
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Regarding Claim 7, Park (annotated fig. 5) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the tapered contact structure (75) comprises protruding portions ([0025], 75P) located between the tapered supports (59D) and further comprises intruding concave portions (intruding concave portions, see annotated fig. 5) between the protruding portions (75P), wherein portions of the tapered supports (59D) are located in the intruding concave portions (portion of the tapered support 59D protrudes into the intruding concave portions of 75, see annotated fig. 5) of the tapered contact structure (75).
Regarding Claim 8, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1 wherein the tapered contact structure (75) contacts the tapered supports (59D).
Regarding Claim 9, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the tapered contact structure (75) comprises: a conductive contact plug ([0018], 74) electrically connected (see annotated fig. 1) to at least one of the conductive layers (45); and an insulating spacer ([0018], 73) surrounding a sidewall of the conductive contact plug (sidewall of 74).
Regarding Claim 18, Park (annotated figs. 1 and 4) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein each of the tapered supports (59D) has a tapered cross-section (see annotated fig. 1), and the tapered contact structure (75) has a cross-section inversely tapered (between the first level and the second level the cross-sections of 75 and 59D are inversely tapered with respect to each other, see annotated fig. 1) with respect to the tapered supports (59D).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Tomimatsu (2019/0088672 A1; hereinafter Tomimatsu)
Regarding Claim 5, Park doesn’t explicitly teach the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the tapered supports each have a first length in the first direction, and the tapered contact structure has a second length smaller than the first length in the first direction.
However, Tomimatsu (fig. 38) teaches the tapered supports ([0138], HR) each have a first length (length of HR) in the first direction (up and down in fig. 38), and the tapered contact structure ([0137], SP, CC) has a second length (length of SP and CC) smaller (see fig. 38) than the first length (length of HR) in the first direction (up and down). Tomimatsu also teaches that the shapes and sizes of the support pillars may change ([0137]-[0142]) while obtaining the predictable results of providing a contact plug in a semiconductor memory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the support and contact structure of Tomimatsu for the support and contact structure of Park, since simple substitution of supports and contact structures for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagashima (2024/0040785 A1; hereinafter Nagashima)
Regarding Claim 19, Park doesn’t teach the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein each of the tapered supports includes a void.
However, Nagashima (fig. 8) teaches each of the tapered supports ([0142], HR) includes a void ([0142], VO). Nagashima also teaches that a support may or may not have voids while obtaining the predictable results of a support in a semiconductor memory.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the support of Nagashima for the support of Park, since simple substitution of supports for another is an appropriate rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15-17 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. None of the references cited, either singly or in combination, teach or render obvious the limitations presented in Claim 10 wherein “between the first level and the second level, an upper portion of each of the tapered supports has a larger width than a lower portion thereof, and a lower portion of the tapered contact structure has a larger width than an upper portion thereof” and in Claim 15 wherein “the first level is located higher than the second level.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIN HRNJIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights