CTFR 18/370,490 CTFR 85773 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on February 04, 2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 6-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0375878 A1 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0009279 A1 to Kuo (“Kuo”) . As to claim 1 , although Zhang discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (100); a bit line (BL) disposed on the substrate (100); a first dielectric layer (108, 126) disposed on the bit line (BL); an isolation spacer (102) disposed on a side of the bit line (BL) and on a side of the first dielectric layer (108, 126), wherein the isolation spacer (102) comprises a second dielectric layer (101) formed on a sidewall of the bit line (BL) and a sidewall of the first dielectric layer (108, 126), a third dielectric layer (105) disposed on the second dielectric layer (101), an air gap (107) formed between the second dielectric layer (101) and the third dielectric layer (105); a landing pad (104, 136 of 106) disposed over the bit line (BL) and covering a top surface of the first dielectric layer (108, 126); and an air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) covering the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and the air gap (107), wherein the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) has an upper portion (top next to top 137, 150) above a top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and a lower portion (middle next to middle 137, 146) below the upper portion (top next to top 137, 150), and a ratio between a thickness of the lower portion (middle next to middle 137, 146) and a thickness of the upper portion (top next to top 137, 150) (See Fig. 1-Fig. 13, ¶ 0015, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0028-¶ 0036, ¶ 0043) (Notes: the air gap protection structure maintains/preserves the air gap. Further, the limitation “on” is defined in ¶ 0015, where “directly on” and with intermediate feature therebetween are applicable), Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the ratio is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8. However, the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com such that it would have been obvious the ratio between the thickness of the lower portion and the thickness of the upper portion is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 because the air gap (137) is formed having a wider middle portion and narrower upper and lower portions where the ratio of the selective upper and lower portions adjusts and determines the size of the air gap and the void (154a) is also limited and adjusted by the thicker upper portion and the thinner lower portion. Further, Kuo does disclose the ratio (1/1.5) between the thickness (10 nm) of the lower portion (W3) and the thickness (15 nm) of the upper portion (W2) is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0019). In view of the teachings of Zhang and Kuo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zhang to have wherein the ratio is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 because the ratio determines and adjusts the dimension of the air gap/void that provides better isolation limited by the dimensions of the surrounding elements (See Zhang ¶ 0034 and Kuo ¶ 0019). As to claim 2 , Zhang further discloses wherein the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) comprises silicon nitride (See ¶ 0035, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0043). As to claim 6 , Zhang further discloses wherein a hole (137, between 156) is defined by the landing pad (104, 136 of 106), the first dielectric layer (108, 126), and the isolation spacer (102), and located over the air gap (107), and the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) is located within the hole (137, between 156) (See Fig. 5, Fig. 13) (Notes: the hole is supported by the landing pad, the first dielectric layer, and the isolation spacer to be “defined by” thereof. Further, the air gap protection structure covering the hole is located within the hole, where the hole is defined by the air gap protection structure as recited in claim 7). As to claim 7 , Zhang further discloses wherein the hole (between 156) defined by the air gap protection structure (146, 150) has a smaller aperture above the top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and near the upper portion (150) of the air gap protection structure (146, 150), and a greater aperture below the top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and near the lower portion (146) of the air gap protection structure (146, 150) (See Fig. 13) (Notes: the tapered silicon nitride layer 156 provides the smaller aperture near the upper portion and the greater aperture near the lower portion). As to claim 8 , Zhang in view of Kuo further discloses wherein an aspect ratio of the hole (137, between 156) is greater than 2 (See Kuo ¶ 0019) (Notes: the hole is also limited by the surrounding elements and is adjusted to obtain optimized results). As to claim 9 , Zhang discloses further comprising: a capacitor contact (130 of 106) spaced apart from the bit line (BL) by the isolation spacer (102) (See Fig. 2) (Notes: the recited “capacitor contact (140) is disposed below the landing pad (146) as shown in FIG. 1A of the Drawings). As to claim 10 , Zhang in view of Kuo further discloses wherein the ratio (1/1.5) between the thickness (10 nm) of the lower portion (W3) and the thickness (15 nm) of the upper portion (W2) of the air gap protection structure (142, 144) is equal to or greater than 0.66 (See Kuo ¶ 0019). As to claim 11 , although Zhang discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a substrate (100); forming a bit line (BL, 1a) on the substrate (100); forming a first dielectric layer (108, 126) on the bit line (BL, 1a); forming an isolation spacer (102) on a side of the bit line (BL, 1a) and on a side of the first dielectric layer (108, 126), wherein the isolation spacer (102) comprises a second dielectric layer (101) formed on a sidewall of the bit line (BL, 1a) and a sidewall of the first dielectric layer (108, 126), a third dielectric layer (105) disposed on the second dielectric layer (101), an air gap (107) formed between the second dielectric layer (101) and the third dielectric layer (105); forming a landing pad (104, 136 of 106) over the bit line (BL) and covering a top surface of the first dielectric layer (108, 126); and forming an air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) to cover the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and the air gap (107), wherein the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) has an upper portion (top next to top 137, 150) above a top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and a lower portion (middle next to middle 137, 146) below the upper portion (top next to top 137, 150), and a ratio between a thickness of the lower portion (middle next to middle 137, 146) and a thickness of the upper portion (top next to top 137, 150) (See Fig. 1-Fig. 13, ¶ 0015, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0022, ¶ 0024, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0028-¶ 0036, ¶ 0043) (Notes: the air gap protection structure maintains/preserves the air gap. Further, the limitation “on” is defined in ¶ 0015, where “directly on” and with intermediate feature therebetween are applicable), Zhang does not specifically disclose wherein the ratio is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8. However, the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com such that it would have been obvious the ratio between the thickness of the lower portion and the thickness of the upper portion is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 because the air gap (137) is formed having a wider middle portion and narrower upper and lower portions where the ratio of the selective upper and lower portions adjusts and determines the size of the air gap and the void (154a) is also limited and adjusted by the thicker upper portion and the thinner lower portion. Further, Kuo does disclose the ratio (1/1.5) between the thickness (10 nm) of the lower portion (W3) and the thickness (15 nm) of the upper portion (W2) is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 (See Fig. 1, ¶ 0019). In view of the teachings of Zhang and Kuo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zhang to have wherein the ratio is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8 because the ratio determines and adjusts the dimension of the air gap/void that provides better isolation limited by the dimensions of the surrounding elements (See Zhang ¶ 0034 and Kuo ¶ 0019). As to claim 12 , Zhang further discloses wherein the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) comprises silicon nitride (See ¶ 0035, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0043). As to claim 15 , Zhang discloses further comprising: patterning the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) to define a hole (between 156) over the air gap (107), wherein the lower portion (146) of the air gap protection structure (146, 150) is formed within the hole (between 156), wherein the hole (between 156) is formed by the landing pad (104, 136 of 106), the first dielectric layer (108, 126), and the isolation spacers (102) (See Fig. 13) (Notes: the hole is “formed/supported” by the landing pad, the first dielectric layer, and the isolation spacers). As to claim 16 , Zhang further discloses wherein the hole (between 156) defined by the air gap protection structure (146, 150) has a smaller aperture above the top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and near the upper portion (150) of the air gap protection structure (146, 150), and a greater aperture below the top surface of the landing pad (104, 136 of 106) and near the lower portion (146) of the air gap protection structure (146, 150) (See Fig. 13) (Notes: the tapered silicon nitride layer 156 provides the smaller aperture near the upper portion and the greater aperture near the lower portion). As to claim 17 , Zhang in view of Kuo further discloses wherein an aspect ratio of the hole (137, between 156) is greater than 2 (See Kuo ¶ 0019) (Notes: the hole is also limited by the surrounding elements and is adjusted to obtain optimized results). As to claim 18 , Zhang in view of Kuo further discloses wherein the ratio (1/1.5) between the thickness (10 nm) of the lower portion (W3) and the thickness (15 nm) of the upper portion (W2) of the air gap protection structure (142, 144, 146, 150) is equal to or greater than 0.66 (See Kuo ¶ 0019). Lastly, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of the “wherein the ratio is greater than 0.6 and less than 0.8, an aspect ratio of the hole is greater than 2, wherein the ratio between the thickness of the lower portion and the thickness of the upper portion of the air gap protection structure is equal to or greater than 0.66.” “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations to obtain optimized ratio in light of design requirements and constrains. See also In re Huang , 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0375878 A1 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0009279 A1 to Kuo (“Kuo”) as applied to claim s 2 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0385898 A1 to Peng (“Peng”) . The teachings of Zhang and Kuo have been discussed above . As to claims 3 and 13 , although Zhang and Kuo do not further disclose wherein the air gap protection structure comprises carbon, Peng does disclose a protection structure (26) comprises carbon (See ¶ 0036). In view of the teachings of Zhang and Peng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zhang to have wherein the air gap protection structure comprises carbon because varying carbon can adjust the K-value of the air gap protection structure to further reduce parasitic capacitance (See Zhang ¶ 0035 and Peng ¶ 0036). As to claim 4 , Zhang in view of Peng further discloses wherein an atomic ratio of carbon is greater than 4.8% (See Peng ¶ 0036) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0375878 A1 to Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0009279 A1 to Kuo (“Kuo”) as applied to claim s 2 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0241424 A1 to Dalton et al. (“Dalton”) . The teachings of Zhang and Kuo have been discussed above . As to claims 5 and 14 , although Zhang and Kuo do not further disclose wherein the air gap protection structure comprises hydrogen, Dalton does disclose a protection structure (12, 16) comprises hydrogen (See ¶ 0025). In view of the teachings of Zhang and Dalton, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Zhang to have wherein the air gap protection structure comprises hydrogen because the air gap protection structure having hydrogen has a low dielectric constant to further reduce parasitic capacitance (See Zhang ¶ 0035 and Dalton ¶ 0025) . Response to Arguments 07-38 Applicant's arguments with respect to claim s 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on February 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues “the thickness W2 as taught by Kuo is different from the thickness T2 above the top surface of the landing pad as claimed in the present application.” This is not found persuasive because Kuo is applied to teach the missing ratio of Zhang, where Zhang already shows a thicker thickness T2 above 104 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6. 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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. /DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 2 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 3 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 4 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 5 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 6 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 7 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 8 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 9 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 10 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 11 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/370,490 Page 12 Art Unit: 2815
Prosecution Insights