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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-8, 10-11 and 21-30 in the reply filed on January 19th, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 1, 10, 24 and 25 have been amended. Claims 9 and 12-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 21-30 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-8, 10-11 and 21-30 as follows.
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.
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 32Arejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-8, 21-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (US 2017/0062454, hereinafter as Lu ‘454) in view of Fujiki (US 2019/0198524, hereinafter as Fuji ‘524) and further in view of Kuniya (US 2010/0276743, hereinafter as Kuni ‘743).
Regarding Claim 1, Lu ‘454 teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 26B, (9, 10); [0137] and [0144]);
a stack structure over the substrate and comprising interleaved conductive layers (146, 246; [0133]) and dielectric layers (132, 232; [0133]);
an array of channel structures (601; [0110]) each extending vertically through the stack structure (see Fig. 19);
a slit structure (74/76; [0131]) extending vertically through the stack structure and laterally separating the stack structure into zones; wherein the slit structure comprises a dielectric spacer (21/41; [0108]).
Lu ‘454 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a connection structure vertically extending through interleaved conductive layers and dielectric layers into the substrate, wherein the connection structure comprises a conductor vertical via and a spacer laterally encircling a curved sidewall of the conductor vertical via, the conductor vertical via of the connection structure being in direct contact with the substrate,”.
Fuji ‘524 teaches a connection structure (Fig. 1, (78/79); [0042]) vertically extending through interleaved conductive layers (52; [0035]) and dielectric (51; [0035]) layers into the substrate, wherein the connection structure comprises a conductor vertical via (78; [0042]) and a spacer (79; [0042]) laterally encircling a curved sidewall of the conductor vertical via (78), the conductor vertical via (78) of the connection structure being in direct contact with the substrate (see Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lu ‘454 by having a connection structure vertically extending through interleaved conductive layers and dielectric layers into the substrate, wherein the connection structure comprises a conductor vertical via and a spacer laterally encircling a curved sidewall of the conductor vertical via, the conductor vertical via of the connection structure being in direct contact with the substrate in order to form a back side contact via structure (see para. [0053]) as suggested by Fuji ‘524.
Lu ‘454 and Fuji ‘524 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “protruding bands between the dielectric layers”.
Kuni ‘743 teaches protruding bands (Figs 1 and 2, (12/13); [0067]) between the dielectric layers (3; [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lu ‘454 and Fuji ‘524 by having protruding bands between the dielectric layers in order to provide a high reliability flash memory for retaining data for a long period of time (see para. [0071]) as suggested by Kuni ‘743.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 26B (Lu ‘454)
Regarding Claim 2, Lu ‘454 teaches the spacer (74) comprises a first portion (in region 165) and a second portion (in region 265) arranged in a vertical direction,
Thus, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first dimension of the first portion in a lateral direction is greater than a second dimension of the second portion in the lateral direction, and the lateral direction is perpendicular to the vertical direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first dimension of the first portion in a lateral direction is greater than a second dimension of the second portion in the lateral direction, and the lateral direction is perpendicular to the vertical direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the connection structure has a circular shape in a plan view”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a circular shape for the connection structure on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Lu ‘454 teaches edges of the conductive layers and edges of the dielectric layers along a sidewall of the connection structure are aligned (see Fig. 26B).
Regarding Claim 5, Lu ‘454 teaches a lower deck (in 165 region); and an upper deck (in 265 region) above the lower deck (see Fig. 26B).
Regarding Claim 6, Lu ‘454 teaches the channel structure (60; [0118]) comprises: a lower channel structure extending through the lower deck; and an upper channel structure extending through the upper deck (see Fig. 26B).
Regarding Claim 7, Lu ‘454 teaches the first portion is located at a junction of the lower deck (in 165 region) and the upper deck (in 265 region) (see Fig. 26B).
Regarding Claim 8, Fuji ‘524 teaches the connection structure (78) is in contact with the peripheral device (Mosfet (35); [0032]) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 21, Fuji ‘524 teaches the spacer (79) of the connection structure has an uneven outer sidewall (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Fuji ‘524 teaches the uneven outer sidewall of the spacer (79) of the connection structure comprises protruding rings (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 23, Fuji ‘524 teaches the spacer (79) of the connection structure (see Fig. 1).
Lu ‘454 teaches protruding rings correspond to the conductive layers of the stack structure, respectively (see Fig. 20).
Regarding Claim 24, Kuni ‘743 teaches protruding band (12/13) is aligned with and in lateral contact with a corresponding one of the conductive layers (4; [0063]) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 25, Kuni ‘743 teaches the protruding band (12/13).
Lu ‘454 teaches the lower deck (165) and the upper deck (265) (see Fig. 26B).
Thus, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a joint protruding band embedded in a joint layer between the lower deck and the upper deck.”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a joint protruding band embedded in a joint layer between the lower deck and the upper deck on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 26, Lu ‘454 teaches the conductive layers of the stack structure (see Fig. 26B).
Thus, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “protruding bands”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have protruding bands on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Fuji ‘524 teaches the connection structure (78) is configured to provide an interconnect between the stack structure and a peripheral device (35) (see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 30, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first size of a first cross section of the connection structure is greater than a second size of a second cross section of the dummy channel structure in a same lateral plane”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have a first size of a first cross section of the connection structure is greater than a second size of a second cross section of the dummy channel structure in a same lateral plane on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yu (US Patent No. 9673213, hereinafter as Yu ‘213)
Regarding Claim 29, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a dummy channel structure extending through the stack structure”.
Yu ‘213 teaches a dummy channel structure (55’; [0121]) extending through the stack structure (see Fig. 21A and 21B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 by having a dummy channel structure extending through the stack structure in order to provide design flexibility for periphery-under-array scheme (see col. 27, lines 49-51) as suggested by Yu ‘213.
Claims 10-11 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pachamuthu (US 2015/0236038, hereinafter as Pacha ‘038).
Regarding Claim 10, Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the dielectric spacer comprises a third portion and a fourth portion arranged in a vertical direction, a third dimension of the third portion in a lateral direction is greater than a fourth dimension of the fourth portion in the lateral direction, and the lateral direction is perpendicular to the vertical direction”.
Pacha ‘038 teaches the dielectric spacer (Fig. 25, (174/274); [0078] and [0110]) comprises a third portion and a fourth portion arranged in a vertical direction.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524 and Kuni ‘743 by having the dielectric spacer comprises a third portion and a fourth portion arranged in a vertical direction in order to enable monolithic integration of MANOS layers between a lower-level memory array and an upper-level memory array (see para. [0155]) as suggested by Pacha ‘038.
Lu ‘454, Fuji ‘524, Kuni ‘743 and Pacha ‘038 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a third dimension of the third portion in a lateral direction is greater than a fourth dimension of the fourth portion in the lateral direction, and the lateral direction is perpendicular to the vertical direction”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a third dimension of the third portion in a lateral direction is greater than a fourth dimension of the fourth portion in the lateral direction, and the lateral direction is perpendicular to the vertical direction on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Pacha ‘038 teaches the dielectric layer in the slit structure (174; [0078]) in the connection structure comprise silicon oxide.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select silicon oxide material for the spacer in the connection structure on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (e.g. Nishi ‘430 teaches the spacer (474; [0038], [0111] and [0126]) in the connection structure comprise silicon oxide as an evidence).
Regarding Claim 28, Pacha ‘038 teaches an upper slit structure having a height less than a height of the upper channel structure; and a lower slit structure having a height greater than a height of the lower channel structure (see Fig. 24).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an upper slit structure having a height less than a height of the upper channel structure; and a lower slit structure having a height greater than a height of the lower channel structure on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-11 and 21-30, filed on January 19th, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893