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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 11th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 15-17, and 19-27 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, there appears to be a typographical/grammatical error “wherein the support trench is oriented to be at least one of parallel to and intersecting the slit” should likely read “parallel to or intersecting the slit” or similar. For the purposes of exanimation this is how the claim will be interpreted.
Regarding claim 20, there appears to be a typographical/grammatical error “wherein the compensation layer includes tungsten, titanium, nitride titanium, molybdenum, cobalt, nickel, Si3N4, SiO2, polysilicon, a combination thereof” should likely read “wherein the compensation layer includes tungsten, titanium, titanium nitride, molybdenum, cobalt, nickel, Si3N4, SiO2, polysilicon, or a combination thereof” or similar. For the purposes of exanimation this is how the claim will be interpreted.
Regarding claim 22, typographical/grammatical error “wherein the supporting portion is formed to pass through at least one of the memory cell structure and the slit” should likely read “at least one of the memory cell structure or the slit” or similar. For the purposes of exanimation this is how the claim will be interpreted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 19-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai (US Patent No. 10,763,099) in view of Kim (Pub. No. US 20220102289).
Regarding claim 19, Dai in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 17 (See rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026). Dai further teaches forming a slimming region at an edge of the integrated circuit, by slimming the plurality word lines to expose ends of the plurality word lines (Figs. 1A-1C and 2, staircase region 140; Col. 4 line 50 -Col. 9 line 45), wherein the support trench extends to the slimming region (Figs. 7A-7D and 8C, compensation structures 704, 706, 708, 710, 808; Col. 11 line 45 – Col. 12 line 59, Col. 13 line 24 – Col. 14 line 53).
Regarding claim 20, Dai in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 2 (See rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026). Dai further teaches the compensation layer including at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, polysilicon, amorphous silicon, or an organic material. (Col. 13 lines 12 – 23 and Col. 16 lines 3-10). Dai also teaches the material of the compensation layer being selected based on it’s mechanical and thermal properties (Col. 13 lines 12 – 23). However, Dai does not explicitly teach the compensation layer including tungsten, titanium, nitride titanium, molybdenum, cobalt, or nickel, and wherein the supporting material includes an oxide material.
Kim teaches having a supporting material with mechanical properties capable of suppressing warpage of the device (Figs. 7A and 7B, trenches 720, filled trenches 740; ¶45-48, 51, 65-67). However, Kim also does not explicitly teach the supporting material including an oxide.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dai to have the compensation layer include tungsten, titanium, nitride titanium, molybdenum, cobalt, nickel, Si3N4, SiO2, polysilicon, or a combination thereof. For the purpose of selecting a material with mechanical properties that adequately address warpage of the device and thermal properties that can withstand the various manufacturing processes, as recognized by Dai. Also to modify Dai in view of Kim such that the supporting material of Kim includes an oxide as Dai discloses using an oxide as a material for the compensation layer with mechanical properties that can adequately address warpage of the device and thermal properties that can withstand the various manufacturing processes. So, it would have been obvious to use an oxide as the material for the supporting material to address the warpage of the device with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Dai in view of Kim teaches the method of claim 1 (See rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 11th, 2026). Dai further teaches the support trench includes a plurality of support trenches, wherein the plurality of support trenches are formed to have different depth and different spacing according to a location at which warpage occurs in the structure and a magnitude of the warpage (Figs. 7A-7D, compensation structures 704, 706, 708, and 710; Col. 11 line 40 – Col. 13 line 11).
Regarding claim 22, Dai teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming an integrated circuit on a first surface of a lower structure, by alternately and repeatedly forming first layers and second layers (Fig. 2, 3D memory device 200, substrate 202, conductor layers 206, dielectric layers 208, memory stack 210; Col. 6 line 19 – Col. 9 line 45), wherein the integrated circuit includes at least one memory cell structure defined by at least one slit extending along a first direction (Fig. 2, 3D memory device 200, NAND memory strings 204, slit structures 228; Col. 6 line 19 – Col. 9 line 45); forming a compensation layer comprising a first material over a second surface of the lower structure (Fig. 8B, wafer 802, semiconductor structures 804, film 806; Col. 13 line 24 – Col. 14 line 34); and forming at least one supporting portion in the compensation layer thereby forming a compensation structure, wherein the supporting portion is formed to pass through at least one of the memory cell structure and the slit (Figs. 7A-7D and 8C, compensation structure 704, 706, 708, 710, 808; Col. 12 lines 25-59, Col. 13 line 24 – Col. 14 line 34, Col. 15 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 23, Dai further teaches forming the supporting portion comprising forming at least one trench in the compensation layer (Fig. 8C, compensation structure 808; Col. 13 line 24 – Col. 14 line 34). However, Dai does not teach filling the trench with a second material different from the first material.
Kim teaches filling the trench with a second material different from the first material (Fig. 7A, trenches 720, filled trenches 740; ¶65-67).
Dai and Kim are analogous art as they are in the same field of endeavor of reducing the bowing or warpage of wafers in semiconductor manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compensation structure of Dai by filling the trenches with the stress compensation material of Kim such that forming the supporting portion comprises forming at least one trench in the compensation layer and filling the trench with a second material different from the first material. For the purpose of obtaining the larger reductions in wafer bowing or warpage achieved by filled trenches compared to empty trenches, as recognized by Kim
Regarding claim 24, Dai further teach a stress of the compensation structure being opposite to a stress of the integrated circuit (Col. 10 line 7 – Col. 14 line 53). Kim also further teaches a stress of the compensation structure being opposite to a stress of the integrated circuit (¶24-25, 28, and 66).
Regarding claim 25, Dai further teaches the supporting portion being formed to face the slit (Figs. 7A-7D, compensation structure 704, 706, 708, 710; Col. 12 lines 25-59 and Col. 15 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 26, Dai further teaches the supporting portion being formed to cross the slit (Figs. 7A-7D, compensation structure 704, 706, 708, 710; Col. 12 lines 25-59 and Col. 15 lines 3-10).
Regarding claim 27, Dai further teaches a first portion of the supporting portion is parallel to the slit and a second portion of the supporting portion is perpendicular to the slit (Figs. 7A-7D, compensation structure 704, 706, 708, 710; Col. 12 lines 25-59 and Col. 15 lines 3-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 (See Applicant’s response, pages 13-14, “VI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103”), Applicant argues that the combination of Dai and Kim does not disclose the claimed support trench being “oriented to be at least one of parallel to and intersection the slit”. However, this newly claimed feature is obvious over Dai in view of Kim as Dai does disclose the support trench being at least one of parallel to and intersecting the slit (Figs. 7A-7D, compensation structures 704, 706, 708, and 710; Col. 12 lines 25 – 59, Col. 15, lines 3-10). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not considered persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the compensation patterns of Dai are a protruding type, and that Dai does not disclose a recessed type support trench, and in addition that Dai fails to disclose a compensation material formed within a support trench. Applicant also argues that the trench of Kim is formed in a scribe line and not a cell region including memory blocks, and that said trench does not contribute to mitigating warpage in the memory block and due to this difference Applicant’s claimed support trench can more effectively mitigate warpage in the memory block. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, these arguments are not considered persuasive as they are individually addressing Dai and Kim and not the combination set forth in the rejection.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Dai in view of Kim is maintained.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, and 15-17 (See Applicant’s response, pages 14-15, “VI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103”), Applicant argues that said claims are patentable as claim 1 is patentable over the combination of Dai and Kim. However, the rejection to claim 1 is being maintained. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Therefore, the rejections of claims 2, 9, 10, and 15-17 as obvious over Dai in view of Kim are maintained, the rejection of claim 3 as obvious over Dai in view of Kim and further in view of Wellhausen is maintained, and the rejection of claim 12 as obvious over Dai in view of Kim and further in view of Wellhausen and Yin is maintained.
With respect to claims 19-27 they are newly presented and have been addressed in the rejections above.
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 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 ETHAN ALEXANDER TUTTLE whose telephone number is (571)272-7055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/E.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights