DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (U.S. PGPub 2019/0043879) in view of Jung (U.S. PGPub 2019/0237475).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 2, 5, [0060]), comprising:
a first semiconductor structure including a substrate, circuit devices on the substrate, and circuit interconnection lines on the circuit devices (Fig. 5, 510, 532, [0108]-[0109]); and a second semiconductor structure on the first semiconductor structure and having a through-interconnection region (542, [0110]),
wherein the second semiconductor structure includes:
a plate layer (540, [0110]),
gate electrodes spaced apart from each other in a first direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the plate layer on the plate layer (Fig. 5, 580A, [0111]), the gate electrodes extending to different lengths in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and forming step regions (Figs. 4A-4B, [0058]),
interlayer insulating layers alternately stacked with the gate electrodes (Fig. 5, 580B, [0111]),
channel structures extending through the gate electrodes, the channel structures extending in the first direction and each including a channel layer (Fig. 2, [0060]),
isolation regions extending through the gate electrodes, extending in the first and second directions, and spaced apart from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first and second directions (214, [0065]),
sacrificial insulating layers alternately stacked with the interlayer insulating layers in the through-interconnection region (560B, [0115]),
a through-via extending through the sacrificial insulating layers and the interlayer insulating layers in the through-interconnection region and extending into the first semiconductor structure in the first direction (Fig. 5, 526, [0117]-[0118]),
a dam structure surrounding the through-via, extending through the interlayer insulating layers, extending in the first direction, and including the channel layer (Fig. 5, 516, [0116]-[0117]) and
a guard structure spaced apart from the dam structure horizontally, extending through the interlayer insulating layers, and extending in the first direction (Fig. 5, 514, [0113]), and
wherein the dam structure and the guard structure have different internal structures (Fig. 5, [0116]).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the guard structure surrounds the dam structure.
Jung teaches wherein a through-interconnection region is surrounded by a first separation structure and a second separation structure which surrounds the first separation structure (Fig. 19B, TH2, MS2’, SS3, [0133]-[0137]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jung with Lu such that the guard structure surrounds the dam structure because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein an outer surface and an inner surface of the guard structure are in contact with the gate electrodes (Lu, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein an inner surface of the dam structure is in contact with the sacrificial insulating layers (Lu, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the dam structure and the channel structures have a same internal structure (Lu, Fig. 5, [0130]), and wherein the guard structure and the isolation regions have a same internal structure (Lu, [0065], [0114]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein each of the channel structures and the dam structure includes a gate dielectric layer, the channel layer, and a channel filling insulating layer, arranged in sequence from the gate electrodes (Lu, [0127]-[0129]; Jung, [[0081]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the purpose of forming the channel structures.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein each of the guard structure and the dam structure has a closed loop shape (Lu, [0116]; Jung, Fig. 19B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the guard structure has a quadrangular ring shape, a circular ring shape, or an elliptical ring shape when viewed in a plan view (Lu, [0116]; Jung, Fig. 19B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein an upper end of the dam structure and an upper end of the guard structure are not coplanar (Lu, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the guard structure includes first regions that extend in the second direction and second regions that extend in the third direction, and wherein the first regions are arranged linearly with the isolation regions in the second direction (Jung, Fig. 19B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the second semiconductor structure further includes dummy channel structures that extend in the first direction and penetrate at least a portion of the gate electrodes (Lu, [0066], [0069]). Lu does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the dummy channel structures is between the dam structure and the guard structure. Lu teaches wherein the dummy channel structures can be formed in any regions outside the through-interconnection region, while passing through the alternating conductor/dielectric stack (Lu, [0069]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Lu in combination with Jung such that at least one of the dummy channel structures is between the dam structure and the guard structure for the purpose of forming the dummy channel structure in a portion of the device with the alternating conductor/dielectric stack.
Regarding claim 13, Lu teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 2, 5, [0060]), comprising:
a plate layer (540, [0110]),
gate electrodes spaced apart from each other in a first direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the plate layer on the plate layer (Fig. 5, 580A, [0111]), the gate electrodes extending to different lengths in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and forming step regions (Figs. 4A-4B, [0058]),
channel structures extending through the gate electrodes, extending in the first direction, the channel structures extending in the first direction and each including a channel layer (Fig. 2, [0060]),
isolation regions extending through the gate electrodes, extending in the first and second directions (214, [0065]),
sacrificial insulating layers that are respectively in parallel with the gate electrodes (560B, [0115]),
a through-via extending through the sacrificial insulating layers and extending in the first direction (Fig. 5, 526, [0117]-[0118]),
a dam structure surrounding the through-via (Fig. 5, 516, [0116]-[0117]) and
a guard structure spaced apart from the dam structure horizontally (Fig. 5, 514, [0113]).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the guard structure has a closed loop shape surrounding the dam structure on a plan view.
Jung teaches wherein a through-interconnection region is surrounded by a first separation structure and a second separation structure which surrounds the first separation structure in a plan view (Fig. 19B, TH2, MS2’, SS3, [0133]-[0137]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jung with Lu such that the guard structure has a closed loop shape surrounding the dam structure on a plan view because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein each of the gate electrodes includes a first region on an outer side of the guard structure and a second region surrounded by the guard structure, wherein the first region and the second region are electrically isolated from each other (Lu, Fig. 5; Jung, Fig. 19B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the dam structure and the guard structure have different internal structures (Lu, Fig. 5, [0116]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein an inner surface of the dam structure is in contact with the sacrificial insulating layers, and an outer surface of the dam structure is in contact with the gate electrodes (Lu, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the dam structure and the guard structure have different heights in the first direction (Lu, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 19, Lu teaches a data storage system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a semiconductor storage device (Figs. 2, 5, [0058]-[0060]) including a first semiconductor structure including circuit devices, a second semiconductor structure on a first side of the first semiconductor structure (Fig. 5, 510, 540, [0108]-[0109]), and an input/output pad electrically connected to the circuit devices (120, [0057]) and
a controller electrically connected to the semiconductor storage device through the input/output pad and configured to control the semiconductor storage device ([0057], device that sends and receives driving power, control signals, response signals, etc), wherein the second semiconductor structure includes:
a plate layer (540, [0110]),
gate electrodes spaced apart from each other in a first direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the plate layer on the plate layer (Fig. 5, 580A, [0111]), the gate electrodes extending to different lengths in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and forming step regions (Figs. 4A-4B, [0058]),
channel structures extending through the gate electrodes, extending in the first direction, the channel structures extending in the first direction and each including a channel layer (Fig. 2, [0060]),
isolation regions extending through the gate electrodes, extending in the first and second directions (214, [0065]),
sacrificial insulating layers that are respectively in parallel with the gate electrodes (560B, [0115]),
a through-via extending through the sacrificial insulating layers and extending in the first direction (Fig. 5, 526, [0117]-[0118]),
a dam structure surrounding the through-via (Fig. 5, 516, [0116]-[0117]) and
a guard structure spaced apart from the dam structure horizontally (Fig. 5, 514, [0113]).
Lu does not explicitly teach wherein the guard structure surrounds the dam structure, wherein each of the gate electrodes includes a first region on an outer side of the guard structure and a second region surrounded by the guard structure, and wherein the first region and the second region are electrically isolated from each other.
Jung teaches wherein a through-interconnection region is surrounded by a first separation structure and a second separation structure which surrounds the first separation structure, wherein each of the gate electrodes includes a first region on an outer side of the second separation structure and a second region surrounded by the second separation structure, and wherein the first region and the second region are electrically isolated from each other (Fig. 19B, TH2, MS2’, SS3, [0133]-[0137], Fig. 20A, VI-VI’).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jung with Lu such that the guard structure surrounds the dam structure, wherein each of the gate electrodes includes a first region on an outer side of the guard structure and a second region surrounded by the guard structure, and wherein the first region and the second region are electrically isolated from each other because the prior art teaches every element, a person of ordinary skill could have combined them as claimed and in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143(I)A.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lu and Jung teaches wherein the guard structure has a closed loop shape in a plan view (Lu, [0116]; Jung, Fig. 19B). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Lu and Jung for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (U.S. PGPub 2019/0043879) in view of Jung (U.S. PGPub 2019/0237475) and Ishizuka (U.S. PGPub 2024/0321743).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lu and Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the guard structure includes a single insulating layer. Lu and Jung teach wherein the guard structure is a slit which functions as a source line contact (Lu, 514, [0114]; Jung, MS, [0090]).
Ishizuka teaches wherein a slit which functions as a source line contact may alternatively be filled with a single insulating layer ([0071]-[0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ishizuka with Lu and Jung such that the guard structure includes a single insulating layer because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lu and Jung does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the dam structure and the guard structure includes a single insulating layer. Lu and Jung teach wherein the guard structure is a slit which functions as a source line contact (Lu, 514, [0114]; Jung, MS, [0090]).
Ishizuka teaches wherein a slit which functions as a source line contact may alternatively be filled with a single insulating layer ([0071]-[0072]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ishizuka with Lu and Jung such that wherein at least one of the dam structure and the guard structure includes a single insulating layer because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in combination, does not reasonably suggest wherein the guard structure is spaced apart from the isolation regions in combination with the rest of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights