Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/618,675

3D NON-VOLATILE MEMORY SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 27, 2024
Examiner
REIDA, MOLLY KAY
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
SK Hynix Inc.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
348 granted / 417 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+2.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
448
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.3%
+6.3% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 417 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner. 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, 3-7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (US Pub. 2017/0162591). Regarding independent claim 1, Choi teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 1B; para. 0020+), comprising: a source structure (SS1/ILS/SS2) disposed over a base (substrate; para. 0047) (Fig. 1B); an etch prevention layer (ESS) disposed over the source structure (Fig. 1B; para. 0022); bit lines (para. 0006); a stack structure (STA) located between the etch prevention layer and the bit lines and including conductive layers (CP) and insulating layers (ILD) that are alternately stacked on each other, wherein one of the insulating layers (lowest ILD) forms an outer surface of the stack structure and is in direct contact with the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0021); a channel structure passing through the stack structure and the etch prevention layer, wherein the channel structure includes a channel layer (CH) and a memory layer (ML1) (Fig. 1B; para. 0036); a slit (SI or SA) passing though the stack structure and the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0021, 0026); and a spacer (SWI) surrounding a sidewall of the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0021), wherein a lower portion of the channel layer is located in the source structure and a sidewall of the lower portion of the channel layer is in direct contact with the source structure (Fig. 1B), and wherein a thickness of the etch prevention layer is less than a thickness of at least one of the insulating layers (Fig. 1B – the thickness of the etch prevention layer is less than a thickness of the lowest ILD). Re claim 3, Choi teaches wherein the source structure comprises: a first source layer (SS1) disposed over the base; and a second source layer (ILS/SS2) located between the first source layer and the etch prevention layer and in direct contact with the lower portion of the channel layer (Fig. 1B). Re claim 4, Choi teaches wherein the etch prevention layer is interposed in an interface between the second source layer and the stack structure (Fig. 1B). Re claim 5, Choi teaches wherein the channel structure further includes a gap-fill layer (CO), wherein the channel layer is disposed over a sidewall of the gap-fill layer, wherein the memory layer is disposed over a sidewall of the channel layer, and wherein the gap-fill layer passes through the stack structure, the etch prevention layer, and the second source layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0060). Re claim 6, Choi teaches wherein a part of the lower portion of the channel layer is exposed, and an exposed part of the channel layer is in direct contact with the second source layer (Fig. 1B). Re claim 7, Choi teaches wherein the lower portion of the channel layer extends into the first source layer and the first source layer is in contact with the memory layer (Fig. 1B). Re claim 9, Choi teaches wherein the spacer is in contact of the stack structure (Fig. 1B). Re claim 10, Choi teaches wherein the slit is filled with an insulating pattern (SI) (para. 0032). 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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2017/0162591) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2012/0119283). Re claim 2, Choi teaches wherein the etch prevention layer may include carbon doped polysilicon (para. 0090), but is silent with respect to other possible materials. Lee teaches the use of silicon carbonitride (SiCN) as a material for an etch stop layer (Fig. SE; para. 0126). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use silicon carbonitride (SiCN) as the etch stop material within the device of Choi for the purpose of providing the desired etch selectivity. Furthermore, it considered obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2017/0162591) in view of AAPA*. Re claim 8, Choi teaches wherein the source structure includes a silicon layer including one of an N-type and P-type dopant (para. 0052). While Choi discloses the material to be a broader silicon, AAPA teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that within the given context, the disclosed “silicon” would encompass the claimed polysilicon and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would further recognize the benefits of polysilicon over pure silicon such as; for example, simpler deposition. *please note, that if applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art (MPEP 2144.03, C) Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US Pub. 2017/0162591) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0287984). Re claim 11, Choi teaches wherein the slit is filled with an insulating pattern. Yang teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) wherein the slit (WLC) is filled with an insulating pattern or a conductive pattern for the purpose of forming a common source line (para. 0063), wherein the conductive pattern includes a polysilicon layer or metal (para. 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to fill the slit with a conductive pattern instead of an insulating pattern as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed invention for the same purpose of forming a common source line. Re claim 12, Choi teaches wherein the slit is filled with an insulating pattern. Yang teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) wherein the slit (WLC) is filled with an insulating pattern or a conductive pattern for the purpose of forming a common source line (para. 0063), wherein the conductive pattern includes a single layer or a multilayer film (para. 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to fill the slit with a conductive pattern instead of an insulating pattern as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed invention for the same purpose of forming a common source line. Regarding independent claim 13, Choi teaches a semiconductor device (Fig. 1B; para. 0020+), comprising: a source structure (SS1/ILS/SS2) disposed over a base (substrate; para. 0047) (Fig. 1B); an etch prevention layer (ESS) disposed over the source structure (Fig. 1B; para. 0022); bit lines (para. 0006); a stack structure (STA) located between the etch prevention layer and the bit lines and including conductive layers (CP) and insulating layers (ILD) that are alternately stacked on each other (Fig. 1B; para. 0021); a channel structure passing through the stack structure and the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0036); a slit (SI or SA) passing though the stack structure and the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B; para. 0021, 0026); a spacer (SWI) disposed on a sidewall of the slit (Fig. 1B; para. 0021); and wherein a lower portion of the channel structure is located in the source structure and a sidewall of the lower portion of the channel structure is in direct contact with the source structure (Fig. 1B), wherein the spacer covers an entire sidewall of the etch prevention layer (Fig. 1B), and wherein a thickness of the etch prevention layer is less than a thickness of at least one of the insulating layers (Fig. 1B – the thickness of the etch prevention layer is less than a thickness of the lowest ILD). Choi teaches wherein an insulating pattern is disposed in the slit (para. 0032). Yang teaches a similar device (Fig. 2) wherein an insulating pattern or conductive pattern is disposed in the slit (WLC) for the purpose of forming a common source line (para. 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to fill the slit with a conductive pattern instead of an insulating pattern as taught by Yang to arrive at the claimed invention for the same purpose of forming a common source line. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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. /MOLLY K REIDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 27, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 07, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 07, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 05, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604647
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598736
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593438
SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593543
DISPLAY MODULE MANUFACTURING METHOD AND DISPLAY SCREEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593558
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+2.4%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 417 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month