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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “convex structure”, “first concave area”, “second concave area” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Applicant’s updated drawings on 05/21/2026 are not showing these features.
Figures 1-6B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
According to applicant’s para [0099] theses drawings have the issue of short circuit and the improvements are done in the process of Fig. 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8 defines “forming a first concave area from a first surface of the substrate, at least two strips of convex structures being constituted by the first concave area in the substrate;
projections on the first surface of two adjacent strips of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas” is ambiguous. It appears the limitation “forming a first concave area from a first surface of the substrate, at least two strips of convex structures being constituted by the first concave area in the substrate” is from a cross-sectional view of Fig. 9B and therefore how “projections on the first surface S1 of two adjacent strips 301 of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas”? It appears this limitation is from a top view of Fig. 10A. Therefore it is suggested to use claim language like “projections on the first surface S1 of two adjacent strips 301 of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas in a top view”.
Claims 1-10 define the terns “convex” and concave” but not shown how these are convex and concave shapes? Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 8 define in the last lines “the non-overlapping area” which has antecedent issues which should be “the at least a part of non-overlapping areas”.
Claims 2-7, 9-10 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claims 1, 8.
Applicant’s response on 05/21/2026 on page 2 “Regarding the terms "convex" and "concave", they are related concepts. According to the present application, the substrate is processed from its first surface to form a first concave area, and at least two strips of convex structures are constituted by this first concave area. It is clear that, relative to the first surface, the first concave area is hollowed or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl, while the at least two strips of convex structures are curved or rounded outward like the exterior of a sphere or circle, as shown in FIG. 9B of the application. Therefore, Applicant believes that these two terms are clear in the claims” are not found persuasive. There are no drawings shown nor in Fig. 9B which must be shown as this shape can be anything while the substrate is processed from its first surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Kiyotoshi et al (JP 2009283514 A).
Regarding claims 1, 8: AAPA teaches in Fig. 1-6B about a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
700
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing a substrate 100;
forming a first concave area (next to 301) from a first surface of the substrate, at least two strips of convex structures 301 being constituted by the first concave area in the substrate;
projections on the first surface of two adjacent strips of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas;
filling the first concave area with an insulating material to form a dielectric layer (hashed area next to 301);
thinning the substrate from a second surface of the substrate until the dielectric layer is exposed on the second surface, wherein the second surface is a back surface of the first surface (Fig. 3B);
partially removing each of the convex structures from the second surface to form a second concave area (Fig. 5B);
filling a conductive material in the second concave area to form a bit line 303 (Fig. 6B); and
forming a bit line lead-out structure 305 connected with the bit line at a position corresponding to the non-overlapping area on a surface of the bit line.
AAPA does not teach projections on the first surface of two adjacent strips of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas and forming a bit line lead-out structure connected with the bit line at a position corresponding to the non-overlapping area on a surface of the bit line.
Kiyotoshi teaches in Fig. 3 about projections on the first surface of two adjacent strips of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas and forming a bit line lead-out structure CB12, CB22 etc. connected with the bit line BL12, BL22 etc. at a position corresponding to the non-overlapping area on a surface of the bit line (As marked).
PNG
media_image2.png
560
862
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify AAPA’s bit-line lead out structures in non-overlapping areas according to the teachings of Kiyotoshi and thereby provide good electrical connection and is easy to process while miniaturization and reduced manufacturing costs has been realized (Kiyotoshi, background section)
Claims 1, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Su et al (CN 112992775 A) in view of Yang et al (US 2023/0069096 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8: Su teaches in Fig. 2A-2M about a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
472
757
media_image3.png
Greyscale
providing a substrate 20;
forming a first concave area from a first surface of the substrate, at least two strips of convex structures being constituted by the first concave area in the substrate (as marked);
projections on the first surface of two adjacent strips of the at least two strips of convex structures along a direction perpendicular to an extension direction of the convex structures having at least a part non-overlapping areas (as marked. For clarification, extension direction above is up and down direction and in and out of this page direction would be a direction perpendicular to up and sown direction and the projections on the 1st or 2nd surface would have non-overlapping areas which are parallel);
filling the first concave area with an insulating material 21 to form a dielectric layer (dielectric 21 has to be between 201 in Fig. 2A);
thinning the substrate from a second surface of the substrate until the dielectric layer is exposed on the second surface, wherein the second surface is a back surface of the first surface;
partially removing each of the convex structures from the second surface to form a second concave area (Fig. 2E);
filling a conductive material in the second concave area to form a bit line 28 (Fig. 2F, 2G); and
forming a bit line lead-out structure 30 (in BRI 30 has been interpreted as lead-out contact extension) connected with the bit line at a position corresponding to the non-overlapping area on a surface of the bit line (as marked).
Su does not teach about thinning the substrate from a second surface of the substrate until the dielectric layer is exposed on the second surface, wherein the second surface is a back surface of the first surface.
Yang teaches in Fig. 10H-10J about thinning the substrate from a second surface of the substrate until the dielectric layer 1004 is exposed on the second surface, wherein the second surface is a back surface of the first surface in Fig. 10H.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the known thinning method in the art in Su’s method to expose a surface for subsequent processing steps of a device according to the teachings of Yang.
Applicant’s arguments on page 3 of 05/21/2026 reply are not found persuasive as “there is no limitation of “in a top view”. For page 4 arguments as explained above, up/down and in/out directions of this page have been considered as the claimed directions. For page 5 arguments are not found persuasive. “bit line lead-out structure” could be interpreted as some extension of bit line to connect with outside circuits and therefore element 28 or 30 or 31 of Su can be interpreted as the claimed “bit line lead-out structure” as there is no claim language no difference of material types of the bit line and bit line lead-out structure is claimed.
Regarding claim 7: Yang teaches in Fig 10H-10J about before thinning the substrate from a second surface of the substrate further comprising:
providing a carrier wafer 1030;
bonding the first surface of the substrate on the carrier wafer (Fig. 10I; and
flipping the substrate to make the second surface vertically upward (Fig. 10J).
Regarding claim 9: Yang teaches in Fig. 10K wherein each of the bit line lead-out structures 1041 has a third surface (bottom surface of 1041) and a fourth surface (upper surface of 1041) opposite to each other, the third surface is connected with the corresponding bit line, and an area of the fourth surface is larger than an area of the third surface.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the known method in the art of forming bit line contact plug in Su’s method to to have the feature as claimed according to the teachings of Yang depending on lithography, etching and deposition method to fill the trench (Yang, [0221]).
Regarding claim 10: Su teaches in Fig. 2M wherein two adjacent ones of the bit lines are centrosymmetric.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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. The limitation allowable is “wherein forming a first concave area from a first surface of the substrate, at least two strips of convex structures being retained in the first concave area comprises:
forming a plurality of first barrier structures on the first surface of the substrate; and
etching a part of the substrate not shielded by the first barrier structures to form the first concave area, wherein a part of the substrate shielded by the first barrier structures is retained as the at least two strips of convex structures” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Claims 3-6 are also allowable being dependent on allowable claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 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, 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights