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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hwang 20220367511.
a. As to claim 1 Hwang teaches A memory device, comprising: a substrate (figure 4 b item 103); an interconnect structure, located above the substrate (items 30b, 109 and 33); a staircase structure, located above the interconnect structure (CS which has steps for each CC contact); a dielectric layer, located above the interconnect structure and covering the staircase structure (items 220 and 210); a stop structure, located between the interconnect structure and the staircase structure, and between the interconnect structure and the dielectric layer(item 201 and 111) , wherein the stop structure has an opening exposing the interconnect structure region which ETHV passes through; a first contact, extending through the dielectric layer and the opening, and connected to an interconnect of the interconnect structure (ETHV), wherein a middle width of the opening is not equal to a top width of the opening, or the middle width of the opening is not equal to a bottom width of the opening (the opening is taper by the virtue of the taper of ETHV thus the middle width is not the same as the top of bottom).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Sim 20210036010.
a. As to claim 1 ,Sim teaches A memory device, comprising: a substrate (figure 13 item 1); an interconnect structure, located above the substrate (item 31 and 33); a staircase structure, located above the interconnect structure (item ST); a dielectric layer, located above the interconnect structure and covering the staircase structure ( item 150 and ild covering ST); a stop structure, located between the interconnect structure and the staircase structure, and between the interconnect structure and the dielectric layer (item SC and 100a), wherein the stop structure has an opening exposing the interconnect structure (region through which CL and TPLG passes the region shown below):
PNG
media_image1.png
56
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; a first contact, extending through the dielectric layer and the opening (CL), and connected to an interconnect of the interconnect structure (see CL connected to item 33 at the top), wherein a middle width of the opening is not equal to a top width of the opening, or the middle width of the opening is not equal to a bottom width of the opening (by the virtue of ES on which DIT terminates the opening makes the bottom smaller than the top thus the middle is either different from the top or bottom).
Sim teaches further comprising a second contact extending through the dielectric layer and the opening and connected to the interconnect of the interconnect structure TPLG
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of admitted prior art.
a. As to claims 7-8, Sim does not explicitly teach wherein a bottom pitch of the first contact and the second contact is larger than a top pitch of the first contact and the second contact.
However, paragraph 3 applicant acknowledges: However, there are still some challenges associated with the three-dimensional NAND flash memory. For example, the through array contact is often inclined or shifted, even causing a short with other components.
Thus, it would have been obvious to use devices of Sim in which the contacts CL and TPLG are inclined offsetting the pitch of the bottom of the contact vs the top as long as the device function properly to provide a larger throughput of functional devices allowing more devices to be sold and provide a higher yield.
b. As to claim 9, Sim does not teach wherein a bottom pitch of the first contact and the second contact is smaller than a top pitch of the first contact and the second contact, and a difference between the bottom pitch and the top pitch ranges from 1 nm to 50 nm.
However, applicant has not shown how to control shifting or inclination of the contacts. Applicant does not appear to actually wan variations instead this an undesired outcome of the known processes based on paragraph 3.
Thus, a difference between the bottom pitch and the top pitch ranges from 1 nm to 50 nm would have had to have been achievable at based on the undesired shifting and incline of the contacts.
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide memories where the contacts CL and TPLG had a wherein a bottom pitch of the first contact and the second contact is smaller than a top pitch of the first contact and the second contact, and a difference between the bottom pitch and the top pitch ranges from 1 nm to 50 nm. To use common and well-known etching and masking process providing known variances in the pitches of contacts for the desire yield a tolerance range.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Hwang.
a. As to claim 18 Sim teaches A memory device, comprising: a substrate (figure 13 item 1); an interconnect structure, located above the substrate (31 and 33); a staircase structure, located above the interconnect structure (ST); a dielectric layer, located above the interconnect structure and covering the staircase structure (ILD and 150); a stop structure, located between the interconnect structure and the staircase structure, and between the interconnect structure and the dielectric layer (items SC and 100a), wherein the stop structure has an opening exposing the interconnect structure region shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; and a first contact and a second contact, extending through the dielectric layer and the opening, and connected to an interconnect of the interconnect structure Items TPLG and CL,
Sim does not teach wherein a base angle of the opening ranges from 84° to 86° or is larger than 90°.
Hwang teaches providing opening in a etch stop layer (figure4b item 201) wherein a base angle of the opening is larger than 90°.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Since applicant does not define a “base angle” this angle can be considered a “base angle”
Further tapers were known to be provided through layers depending on how isotropic the etchant is. Thus, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the opening using slight isotropic etch. One would have been so motivated to use know functionally equivalent method to provide know outcomes for the etchant.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim in view of Hwang in view of Mayuzumi (20240371760)
a. Sim teaches wherein a support pillar extends through the dielectric layer and land on the stop structure around the opening (DIT). Sim does not teach a plurality of support pillars.
Mayuzumi teaches providing a plurality of support pillars (paragraph 9 and 93 figure 4 item 19 in the step region to support the dielectrics during processing.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide additional support pillars “around” (around does not limit how close it needs to be to the opening; thus, and support pillar in the step are can be interpreted as around) opening in the step region To support the dielectrics and/or metallization during processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-5 are and 20 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.
As to claim 2, While Arai 20240371763 has two conical shapes that form a funnel. Arai does not teach a rectangular shape with the conical shape.
As to claim 20 prior art does not teach and or suggest wherein a ratio of a distance between the plurality of support pillars to a top width of the opening ranges from 1.03 to 1.15, and a ratio of the top width of the opening to a bottom width of the opening ranges from 1.1 to 0.9.
Claim 10-17 are allowed.
Prior art fails to teach and or suggest a first contact and a second contact, extending through the dielectric layer and the opening, and connected to an interconnect of the interconnect structure; and a plurality of liner layers, located on a sidewall of the opening.
Hwang teaches one contact with what could be a liner along the side wall but there is no teaching to include an additional contact and keeping the liners on the sidewalls of the opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896