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
Claims 1,2, 4-18 and 36-37 are pending in this application
Applicant elected without traverse Invention I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on November 12, 2025.
All withdrawn claims were cancelled in the amendment dated March 11, 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to claims of priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a) to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0052724 filed on April 21, 2023
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed March 11, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 15 are amended. Claims 3 and 19-35 are cancelled. Claims 36-37 are newly added. The Examiner notes that claims 1-2, 4-18, and 36-37 are examined.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2024/0063140 A1) in view of Lee-653 (US 2023/0049653 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Xie teaches in Figs. 1-2:
A semiconductor device comprising:
a gate structure (memory stack 102) including stacked gate lines (conductive lines 104) and having a step structure (see Fig. 1);
an interlayer dielectric layer (insulating structure 122) covering the step structure;
first supports extending through the interlayer dielectric layer and the gate structure (contact structures 118 and support structures 120, para. 59 “the stacks of contact structures 118 and support structures 120 in second row 152 may be used for supporting the structure of the dielectric stack to avoid collapse”);
contact plugs extending through the interlayer dielectric layer (contact structures 118 in row 150),
wherein each of the contact plugs (118 in 150) is connected to the gate lines (104) through the step structure, respectively (connected through staircase contact 116);
and second supports (120 in 150) extending through the gate structure,
each of the second supports being located between the first supports (see Fig. 2, 120 within row 150 is between the 118/120 support structures of rows 152)
wherein the first supports each have a tapered cross section (para. 57 “a width of first end 162 is greater than a width of second end 164”),
Xie fails to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports.
Lee-653 teaches:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports (reverse direction to the supports of Xie). (“the upper portion of the insulating pillar CR may include an end portion that is tapered in the third direction D3, as shown in FIG. 8B”)
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Xie such that the supports have the shapes taught by Lee-653, since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to make such a modification because the process in which the tapered cross section is formed results in greater surface area between the contact and the contact plugs. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claim 2, Xie further teaches:
wherein the first supports extend into the gate structure through a front surface of the gate structure (first supports comprising 118/120 in row 152 extend through both sides of the gate structure, including a front (top) surface),
and wherein the second supports (120 in row 150) extend into the gate structure through a rear surface (bottom surface) of the gate structure.
With respect to claim 4, Lee-653 further teaches:
wherein the contact plugs each have a tapered cross section (para. 72 “the top surface of the second protruding portion RP2 may include a recessed region, and the cell contact CC may include a tapered end portion that is extended toward the recessed region.”), and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the contact plugs (para. 72 “the upper portion of the insulating pillar CR may include an end portion that is tapered in the third direction D3”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Xie in view of Lee-653 as explained above.
With respect to claim 5, Xie further teaches:
wherein the second supports (120 in row 150) face the contact plugs (118 in 150).
With respect to claim 7, Xie further teaches:
wherein a first contact plug among the contact plugs (one of contact structures 118) is connected to a lower surface of a first gate line among the gate lines, and wherein a second support of the second supports (one of 168 opposing the one of the contact plugs) is connected to an upper surface of the first gate line (The Examiner notes that the designation “upper” and “lower” only depend on the orientation of the device).
With respect to claim 8, Xie further teaches:
further comprising: a source structure located on the gate structure (para. 48 “the bottom of channel structure 108 may contact a source of 3D memory device 100.”)
With respect to claim 9, Lee-653 further teaches:
wherein the second supports (insulating pillar CR) extend into the source structure (source structure SCL).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Xie/Lee-653 to include a source layer that the second supports extend through as taught by Lee-653 because Lee-653 teaches that the penetration holes that are filled by the second supports may either penetrate through the source structure or may have bottom surfaces higher than the source pattern and both embodiments would work the same. Since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04.
With respect to claim 10, Lee-653 further teaches:
a channel structure (cell vertical patterns VS) extending into the source structure (source structure SCL) through the gate structure (electrode structure ST).
Xie discloses the claimed invention except that the channel structure of Xie contacts the source layer without extending through it. Lee-653 discloses that it is known in the art to provide a source structure that the channel structure extends. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Xie with the source and channel structure of Lee-653, in order to improve the electrical connection between the source and the channel. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 12, Xie further teaches:
wherein among the contact plugs (118 of row 150),
a contact plug (leftmost of 118) closer to the channel structure (108) has a smaller height in the vertical direction than other contact plugs (leftmost contact plug is the shortest),
and wherein,
among the second supports (120 within row 150),
a second support (leftmost of 120) closer to the channel structure (108) has a larger height in the vertical direction than other second supports (left support is tallest).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (US 2024/0063140 A1) in view of Lee-653 (US 2023/0049653 A1) as applied to claims 10 above and further in view of Lee-251 (US 2019/0341251 A1).
With respect to claim 11, Xie/Lee-653 teaches all limitations of claim 10 upon which claim 11 depends. Xie/Lee-653 fails to teach: among the contact plugs,
a contact plug closer to the channel structure has a greater height in the vertical direction than other contact plug,
and wherein, among the second supports,
a second support closer to the channel structure has a smaller height in the vertical direction the other second support.
Lee-251 teaches:
among the contact plugs,
a contact plug (28B) closer to the channel layer has a higher height than the other contact plug (see annotated Fig. 1B below),
PNG
media_image1.png
427
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modifying Xie/Lee-653 with the configuration of channel plugs of Lee-251 would result in the second supports of Xie to be shorter when opposite a longer contact plug therefore, Xie/Lee-653 modified by Lee-251 teaches:
and wherein, among the second supports,
a second support closer to the channel structure has a smaller height in the vertical direction than other second supports.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include longer contact plugs closer to the channel layer than shorter contact plugs, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to make such a modification for the purpose of optimizing the layout of a semiconductor device.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2022/0181273 A1) in view of Otaguro (US 2021/0066338 A1).
A semiconductor device comprising a gate structure (stacks GS1 and GS2) including stacked gate lines (gate electrodes 130 and 230) and having a step structure;
an interlayer dielectric layer (insulating layer 290) covering the step structure;
first supports (supports 260) extending through the interlayer dielectric layer (290) and the gate structure (GS1 and GS2);
contact plugs (contact structure 280) extending through the interlayer dielectric layer (290), wherein each of the contact plugs is connected to the gate lines (230) exposed through the step structure, respectively; and
second supports (supports 160) extending through the gate structure,
each of the second supports being located between the first supports (260, see Fig. 4B) wherein the first supports each have a tapered cross section (see Fig. 4B),
Kwon fails to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports.
Otaguro teaches that it is known for support pillars to be made in a variety of shapes, including a reverse tapered shape (para. 127 “For instance, the memory pillars MP and support pillars HR may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle. In a similar manner, the slits SLT and SHE may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle”).
It would therefore be obvious to modify Kwon by Otaguro such that the second supports are a reverse taper to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports.
The above limitation is rejected under the rationale Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
The Graham factual inquiries for this rationale are:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Kwon teaches a device that is different from the claimed invention in that the second supports are not reverse-tapered. A reverse-tapered support is known in the art as taught by Otaguro, which lists it as an option interchangeable with support pillars that are bulging, tapered, or have straight sides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the invention that the tapered support structures of Kwon could be substituted with the reverse-tapered support structures taught by Otaguro and expect the support structure to perform the same role of providing structural support during manufacturing of the device with predictable results.
With respect to claim 6, Kwon further teaches:
wherein a first contact plug among the contact plugs (one of contact structures 280) is connected to a lower surface of a first gate line (upper surface of 230) among the gate lines, and wherein a second support of the second supports (160 directly below the one of the contact structures 280) is spaced apart from an upper surface of the first gate line (see Fig. 4B, lower contact structures terminate before reaching GS2).
The Examiner notes that the designation of a surface as “upper” or “lower” is arbitrary and depends on the orientation of the device.
Claim 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2022/0181273 A1) in view of Lee-251 (US 2019/0341251 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Kwon teaches in Fig. 2:
A semiconductor device comprising a gate structure (stacks GS1 and GS2) including stacked gate lines (gate electrodes 130 and 230)
first supports extending into the gate structure through a flat front surface (support structures 260) of the gate structure (260 extends into the gate structure through the top of the exposed gate electrodes 230);
contact plugs (contact structures 280),
the contact plugs (280) electrically connected to the gate lines (230 and 130), respectively;
and second supports (support structures 160) extending into the gate structure through a rear surface of the gate structure (extend through the bottom surface),
each of the second supports being located between the first supports (see Fig. 2).
Kwon fails to teach:
contact plugs extending into the gate structure through the flat front surface of the gate structure,
Lee-251 teaches in Fig. 12B:
contact plugs (contact plug 45) extending into the gate structure through the flat front surface of the gate structure (top surface of stack ST),
Kwon discloses the claimed invention except for the contact plugs extending into the gate structure through a flat front surface of the gate structure. Lee-251 teaches that it is known to include contact plugs that pass through surfaces of the gate structure instead of patterning the contact area into staircases as taught by Kwon. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gate contact layout in which contact plugs pass through a top surface of the gate structure as taught by Lee-25, since Lee-251 states in para. 106 that such a modification would improve the stability of the structure during manufacturing with a simplified manufacturing process. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 14, Lee-251 further teaches:
further comprising: insulation spacers (protective layer 39) surrounding sidewalls of the contact plugs (45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kwon in view of Lee-251 as explained above, and to further modify to include the insulation spacers as taught by Lee-251 for the purpose of preventing the contact plugs from shorting adjacent gate lines.
With respect to claim 17, Kwon further teaches in Fig. 4B:
further comprising: a source structure (para. 69 “The first horizontal conductive layer 102 may function as a portion of a common source line of the semiconductor device 100, and may, for example, function as a common source line together with the second substrate 101.”) located on the gate structure (on bottom of GS1), wherein the second supports (160) extend into the source structure.
With respect to claim 18, Kwon further teaches in Fig. 4B:
further comprising: a source structure (para. 69 “The first horizontal conductive layer 102 may function as a portion of a common source line of the semiconductor device 100, and may, for example, function as a common source line together with the second substrate 101.”) located on the gate structure (on the bottom of GS1);
and a channel structure (channel structure CH) extending into the source structure through the gate structure.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2022/0181273 A1) and Lee-251 (US 2019/0341251 A1) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Otaguro (US 2021/0066338 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Kwon/Lee-251 teaches all limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 15 depends. Kwon further teaches:
wherein the first supports (260) each have a tapered cross section (see Fig. 2),
Kwon fails to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports.
Otaguro teaches that it is known for support pillars to be made in a variety of shapes, including a reverse tapered shape (para. 127 “For instance, the memory pillars MP and support pillars HR may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle. In a similar manner, the slits SLT and SHE may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle”).
It would therefore be obvious to modify Kwon/Lee-251 by Otaguro such that the second supports are a reverse taper to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the first supports;
The above limitation is rejected under the rationale Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
The Graham factual inquiries for this rationale are listed above
Kwon teaches a device that is different from the claimed invention in that the second supports are not reverse-tapered. A reverse-tapered support is known in the art as taught by Otaguro, which lists it as an option interchangeable with support pillars that are bulging, tapered, or have straight sides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the invention that the tapered support structures of Kwon could be substituted with the reverse-tapered support structures taught by Otaguro and expect the support structure to perform the same role of providing structural support during manufacturing of the device with predictable results.
With respect to claim 16, Kwon/Lee-251 teaches all limitations of claim 13 upon which claim 16 depends. Kwon further teaches:
wherein the contact plugs (280) each have a tapered cross section (see Fig. 2),
Kwon fails to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the contact plugs.
Otaguro teaches that it is known for support pillars to be made in a variety of shapes, including a reverse tapered shape (para. 127 “For instance, the memory pillars MP and support pillars HR may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle. In a similar manner, the slits SLT and SHE may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle”).
It would therefore be obvious to modify Kwon/Lee-251 by Otaguro such that the second supports are a reverse taper to teach:
and wherein the second supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the contact plugs.
The above limitation is rejected under the rationale Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
The Graham factual inquiries for this rationale are listed above.
Kwon teaches a device that is different from the claimed invention in that the second supports are not reverse-tapered. A reverse-tapered support is known in the art as taught by Otaguro, which lists it as an option interchangeable with support pillars that are bulging, tapered, or have straight sides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the invention that the tapered support structures of Kwon could be substituted with the reverse-tapered support structures taught by Otaguro and expect the support structure to perform the same role of providing structural support during manufacturing of the device with predictable results.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (US 2022/0181273 A1) in view of Lee-251 (US 2019/0341251 A1) and Otaguro (US 2021/0066338 A1).
With respect to claim 36, Kwon teaches in Fig. 4B:
A semiconductor device comprising:
a gate structure (stack GS1 and GS2) including stacked gate lines (third material layer 47);
contact plugs (contacts structures 280),
the contact plugs electrically connected to different gate lines (para. 38 “contact structures 280 connected to the first and second gate electrodes 130 and 230”);
and supports (support structure 160) extending through the gate structure and located over the contact plugs (280),
wherein the contact plugs each have a tapered cross section (see Fig. 4B),
Kwon fails to teach:
contact plugs extending through the gate structure to different depths,
and wherein the supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the contact plugs.
Lee-251 teaches in Fig. 12B:
contact plugs (plugs 45) extending through the gate structure (stack ST) to different depths (see Fig. 12B),
Otaguro teaches that it is known for support pillars to be made in a variety of shapes, including a reverse tapered shape (para. 127 “For instance, the memory pillars MP and support pillars HR may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle. In a similar manner, the slits SLT and SHE may be tapered or reverse tapered, or may be bulged in the middle”).
It would therefore be obvious to modify Kwon/Lee-251 by Otaguro such that the second supports are a reverse taper to teach:
and wherein the supports each have a tapered shape in a reverse direction with respect to the contact plugs.
The above limitation is rejected under the rationale Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results (MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
The Graham factual inquiries for this rationale are listed above.
Kwon teaches a device that is different from the claimed invention in that the second supports are not reverse-tapered. A reverse-tapered support is known in the art as taught by Otaguro, which lists it as an option interchangeable with support pillars that are bulging, tapered, or have straight sides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known before the effective filing date of the invention that the tapered support structures of Kwon could be substituted with the reverse-tapered support structures taught by Otaguro and expect the support structure to perform the same role of providing structural support during manufacturing of the device with predictable results.
With respect to claim 37, Kwon further teaches:
wherein a first contact plug among the contact plugs (one of contact structures 280) is connected to a lower surface of a first gate line among the gate lines (one of 230 connected to the contact), and wherein a support of the supports (one of 160 directly below the one of the contact structures) is spaced apart from an upper surface of the first gate line (see Fig. 4B, 160 terminates below the gate line).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-12, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to objections to drawings and claims and 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, which have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed March 11, 2026 with respect to prior art rejections of claim 1 and its dependents have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that amended claim 1, which incorporates cancelled claim 3, is patentable over prior art, the Applicant argues that the Examiner agreed that the cited references do not teach the reversed tapers. The Examiner notes that although no prior art anticipates all of the limitations, the combination of references cited teaches all of the claimed limitations. The Applicant has not clearly pointed out why the combination of references is nonobvious, therefore, the arguments are found not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 and its dependents 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights