DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “LV1”, “LV2”, and “LV3” are used in the specification, but the acronym is not identified in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 thru 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 2022/0013538 A1 in view of Rha et al. US 2022/0216227 A1. Lee discloses (see, for example, FIG. 4) a semiconductor memory device comprising a cell array structure CS and a peripheral circuit structure PS, the cell array structure CS provided on the peripheral circuit structure PS in a vertical direction, wherein the cell array structure CS includes: a first stack structure ST2, a second stack structure ST1 between the first stack structure ST2 and the peripheral circuit structure PS, and vertical channel structures CH, which includes vertical channel structures 330/332/334/335 extending into the first and second stack structures; and a second cell contact plug 311 extending into the first, and second stack structures and extending into a second contact pad 160 at an end of a second word line 141 in the second stack structure ST1, and wherein the second cell contact plug 311 includes a first horizontal protrusion CTR1 having a horizontal width that increases discontinuously at a connection portion of the first stack structure ST2 and the second stack structure ST1. Lee does not disclose a third stack structure between the second stack structure and the peripheral circuit structure, each of the first, second, and third stack structures including a plurality of word lines. However, Rha discloses (see, for example, FIG. 6B) a semiconductor memory device comprising a first stack structure GS3, second stack structure GS2, and third stack structure GS1 including a plurality of word lines 330. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at time prior to the effective filing date, to have a third stack structure between the second stack structure and the peripheral circuit structure, each of the first, second, and third stack structures including a plurality of word lines in order to increase the storage capacity of the semiconductor memory device while using the same physical stacking footprint. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts (i.e. such as adding another stack structure) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses multiple contacts plugs 320 that extend into multiple stack structures that connect to contact pads 160, 170 at the ends of word lines in multiple stack structures. Each of the stack structures ST1, ST2 have horizontal protrusions having a horizontal width that increases discontinuously at a connection portion of the stack structures ST1, ST2, and therefore, the same structure (i.e. “a third cell contact plug extending into the first to third stack structures and connected to a third contact pad at an end of a third word line in the third stack structure, wherein the third cell contact plug includes a second horizontal protrusion having a horizontal width that increases discontinuously at a connection portion of the third stack structure and the second stack structure.”) disclosed in claim 2 is also disclosed in the embodiment of Lee in view of Rha when the third stack structure of Rha is combined with the first and second stack structures of Lee. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts (i.e. third cell contact plug, third stack structure, third contact pad, second horizontal protrusion, etc.) of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 3, 9, 15, and 19, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses multiple cell contact plugs 310/320 wherein the cell contact plugs 310/320 do not include a horizontal protrusion (i.e. the upper portion of the contact plugs 310/320 in the portion 150) at a connection portion 150 of the first stack structure and the second stack structure. Further, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claims 4, and 16, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses a first cell contact plug 326 extending into stack structures ST1/ST2 and connected to a first contact pad at an end of a first word line 246 in the first stack structure ST2. Regarding the limitation “wherein the first cell contact plug does not include a horizontal protrusion”, the upper portion of the contact plug 326 in the portion 150 does not include a horizontal protrusion, and further, it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. Further, the applicant does not define the metes and bounds of the term “horizontal protrusion” as every structure has a width, and therefore, has a “horizontal protrusion.”
Regarding claims 5-6, and 17, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses multiple cell contact plugs 310/320 being between, for example, the cell contact plug 322, and the vertical channel structures CH.
Regarding claim 7, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses the first horizontal protrusion CTR1 being spaced apart from the peripheral circuit structure PS with the second contact pad 160 therebetween.
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses the first horizontal protrusion CTR1 vertically overlaps the second contact pad 160.
Regarding claim 10, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses the second cell contact plug 311 has a first horizontal width (i.e. thinner, top portion in layer 150) in a region adjacent to the horizontal protrusion (i.e. wider, bottom portion in layer 150), wherein the first horizontal protrusion has a second horizontal width. Lee in view of Rha does not clearly disclose the second horizontal width being 1.2 to 3.0 times the first horizontal width; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the second horizontal width being 1.2 to 3.0 times the first horizontal width in order to form contact plugs that have adequate structural support, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Rha does not expressly disclose a cross-sectional thickness of the first horizontal protrusion being smaller than the second horizontal width; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have a cross-sectional thickness of the first horizontal protrusion being smaller than the second horizontal width in order to maintain a ratio that provides adequate support to the semiconductor device, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, see, for example, FIG. 16 wherein Lee discloses insulating spacers 318.
Regarding claims 13, and 14, see, for example, the rejection for claim 2 above. Further, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses a semiconductor layer 120 that is provided between the stack structures ST1, ST2 and the peripheral circuit structure PS.
Regarding claim 18, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Lee discloses the
first horizontal protrusion CTR1 being between the second contact pad 260 and the semiconductor layer 120.
Regarding claim 20, see, for example, the rejection for claim 1 above, and further, FIG. 1 wherein Lee discloses an electronic system 10 including a controller CTRL, and FIG. 17 wherein Lee discloses input/output pads 400/500.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
June 7, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights