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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to foreign application KR 1020230125362 filed on 9/20/2023. The foreign application is not in English. The certified copy of the foreign priority application has been received. Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Entitled to Priority DateExaminers notes that a certified translation was submitted on 8/04/2026. Subsequently all claims are entitled to priority date
Drawings
Examiner notes that the drawings have been accepted, and the Office Action Summary has been marked to reflect the acceptance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 lines 1-16, filed 8/04/2026, with respect to objections to claim 1, 14 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 1 and 14 has been withdrawn. The objection of claim 16 has been rendered moot by its cancellation.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 9, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the channel structures are active structures, and that the channel structures are extended through the channel layers to reduce interference) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the channel fill structures (Sugawara, 20, Fig. ) of Sugawara are support pillars rather than actual channel structures. However, para. 119 of Sugawara expressly describes them as containing a vertical semiconductor channel (60). Applicant also argues that para. 120 of Sugawara states that the pillar structures include a dummy memory film. That same sentence continues to read “and a dummy semiconductor channel, further reinforcing support pillar structures (20) as channel structures. The claim does not recite the limitation that the channel structures must be active; therefore the support pillar structures (20) of Sugawara fulfill all claimed limitation.
Additionally, applicant argues that Sugawara does not disclose or suggest extending an actual channel structure through the inclined portion of the conductive layers so as to increase a length of the conductive layers between the channel structures and thereby reduce interference between memory cells, as in the present invention.
Sugawara does not address this; however this is not referred to in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 14, applicant's arguments filed 8/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the channel layer of Yune does not extend through an inclined portion of the wave-like profile of the conductive layers and that Yune forms the channel structures (323) in the troughs and that the inclined structures are formed between the troughs. However, as Shown in Fig. 5 of Yune, the channel structures, when formed, are in contact with the inclined surfaces on either side of the trough thereby passing through the edge of the inclined surfaces.
Additionally, applicant argues that Yune does not disclose or suggest extending an actual channel structure through the inclined portion of the conductive layers so as to increase a length of the conductive layers between the channel structures and thereby reduce interference between memory cells, as in the present invention.
Yune does not address this; however this is not referred to in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Claims 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yune et al. (KR 101900892), hereinafter referred to as Yune.
Regarding claim 14, Yune teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a source structure (Yune, 303, Fig. 5, page 16, para. 1);
a support structure disposed over the source structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7),
the support structure including a plurality of supports arranged along a first direction (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5);
and the support structure extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Yune, Fig. 1a);
a gate structure disposed over the support structure, the gate structure including conductive layers and insulating layers alternately stacked (Yune, LSL, WL, USL, ILD1-6, page15 para. 7-page 16 para. 1);
and channel structures passing through the gate structure to connect to the source structure (Yune, 321, 323, 325, Fig. 5, page 16, para. 1), wherein the support structure has an overall wave-like profile with a plurality of alternating convex protrusions and concave valleys (Yune, Fig. 5);
and wherein each of the conductive layers includes a wave-like profile extending in the second direction (Yune, Fig. 5),
and wherein at least one of the channel structures extends through an inclined portion of the wave-like profile of the conductive layers, and the inclined portion is positioned between the channel structures (Yune, Fig. 5, shows channel structures (321, 323, 325) extending through the troughs of the waves, in contact with the inclined portions of the wave-like profile on either side of the channel structure and the pairs of inclined surfaces are disposed between adjacent channel structures).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page. 15, para.7 and page 11, para. 1, NOTE: page 15, para. 7 says it is an oxide, page 11, para. 1 says oxide film is an insulator) includes an insulating material having an etch selectivity with respect to nitride.
Regarding claim 18, Yune teaches wherein a shape of the wave-like profile of the conductive layers is different for each level of the conductive layers, such that the conductive layers relatively adjacent to the support structure have a shape transferred from the overall wave-like profile of the support structure (Yune, Fig. 5, the shape of the stack structure is directly related to the shape of the support structure beneath them).
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yune in view of Sugawara et al. (US Pub 20190139974) hereinafter referred to as Sugawara.
Examiner’s Note: All page numbers and paragraph numbers are from the copy provided by the applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Yune teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a source structure (Yune, 303, Fig. 5, page 16, para. 1); a support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7) disposed over the source structure in a first direction,
the support structure including a first inclined surface extending in a second direction crossing the first direction (Yune, Fig. 1);
a gate structure disposed over the source structure and the support structure, the gate structure including conductive layers (Yune, LSL, WL, USL, Fig. 5, page 16, para. 1) and insulating layers (Yune, ILD1-ILD6, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7) alternately stacked;
channel structures passing through the gate structure to connect to the source structure (Yune, 321, 323,m 325, Fig. 5, page 16, paras. 1, 5); and a slit structure (Yune, 335, Fig. 5, page 15, para 7);
wherein each of the conductive layers includes a second inclined surface extending in the second direction (Yune, Fig. 1)
and wherein at least one of the channel structures extends through the second inclined surface (Yune, Fig. 5, shows channel structures (321, 323, 325) extending through the troughs of the waves, in contact with the inclined portions of the wave-like profile on either side of the channel structure)..
Yune does not teach wherein the slit structure extends in the first direction through the gate structure.
However, Sugawara teaches a semiconductor device wherein a backside contact via structure (Sugawara, 76, Fig 21B, para 140) and an insulating spacer (Sugawara, 74, Fig. 21B, para 137) extends in the same first direction as the plurality of channel structures (Sugawara, 20, Fig. 21B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yune with the backside structures of Sugawara in order to reduce or prevent electrical shorts between vertically neighboring pairs of electrically conductive layers (Sugawara para. 164).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the support structure includes supports spaced apart in the first direction, and wherein each support has a trapezoidal shape (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 4, wherein the supports are adjacent in the second direction (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, supports are adjacent to one another), and the slit structure is positioned between the supports adjacent in the second direction (Sugawara, 74, 76, Fig, 21B, the slit structures are located between the rows of channel structures, as seen in Fig. 1A of the application).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first inclined surface includes an angled surface (Yune, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7, 311a is an oxide) includes a material having an etch selectivity with respect to nitride.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page. 15, para.7 and page 11, para. 1, NOTE: page 15, para. 7 says it is an oxide, page 11, para. 1 says oxide film is an insulator) includes an insulating material.
Regarding claim 9, Yune teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a support structure including a first inclined surface (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7);
a gate structure including insulating layers (Yune, ILD 1-6, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7) and conductive layers (Yune, LSL, WL, USL, Fig. 5, page 16, para. 1) alternately stacked on the support structure, each of the conductive layers including a second inclined surface;
a channel structure extending through the surface of the gate structure (Yune, 321, 323, 325, Fig. 5, page 16, pars. 1, 5). ;
and a slit structure (Yune, 335, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7).
Yune does not teach wherein the channel structure extends through the second inclined surface of the gate structure; or where the slit structure extends through the second inclined surface of the gate structure.
However, Sugawara teaches a semiconductor device where the channel structures (Sugawara, 20, Fig. 21A, para. 120) extend through the second inclined surface of the gate structure. Additionally Sugawara teaches a backside contact via structure (Sugawara, 76, Fig 21B, para 140) and an insulating spacer (Sugawara, 74, Fig. 21B, para 137) extends in the same first direction as the plurality of channel structures (Sugawara, 20, Fig. 21B). This would cause the slit structure to extend through the inclined portions (not shown in the figures)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yune with the channel structures and backside structures of Sugawara in order to reduce or prevent electrical shorts between vertically neighboring pairs of electrically conductive layers (Sugawara para. 164)
Regarding claim 11, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the first inclined surface includes an angled surface (Yune, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page 15, para. 7, 311a is an oxide) includes a material having an etch selectivity with respect to nitride.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the support structure (Yune, 311a, Fig. 5, page. 15, para.7 and page 11, para. 1, NOTE: page 15, para. 7 says it is an oxide, page 11, para. 1 says oxide film is an insulator) includes an insulating material.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yune as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sugawara.
Regarding claim 15, Yune teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, further comprising: a slit structure (Yune, 335, Fig. 5, page 15, para 7), but does not teach the slit structure extending in the first direction through the gate structure.
However, Sugawara teaches a semiconductor device wherein a backside contact via structure (Sugawara, 76, Fig 21B, para 140) and an insulating spacer (Sugawara, 74, Fig. 21B, para 137) extends in the same first direction as the plurality of channel structures (Sugawara, 20, Fig. 21B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the device of Yune with the backside structures of Sugawara in order to reduce or prevent electrical shorts between vertically neighboring pairs of electrically conductive layers (Sugawara para. 164).
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 KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights