DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17440212 application filed September 17, 2021, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on September 4, 2025. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claims 12-21 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
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.
Claim Interpretations under 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim limitation “the predetermined processing is executed such that the plurality of structures have hydrophilicity corresponding to a contact angle when a permeation time for the processing liquid to permeate into a space between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures is constant, wherein the contact angle is defined by an angle of a surface of the processing liquid relative to one of the surfaces of the structures” (emphasis added) recited in claims 1 and 11 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “the predetermined processing” with functional language “the plurality of structures have hydrophilicity corresponding to a contact angle when a permeation time for the processing liquid to permeate into a space between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures is constant, wherein the contact angle is defined by an angle of a surface of the processing liquid relative to one of the surfaces of the structures” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. It is noted that the functional language “the plurality of structures have hydrophilicity corresponding to a contact angle when a permeation time for the processing liquid to permeate into a space between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures is constant, wherein the contact angle is defined by an angle of a surface of the processing liquid relative to one of the surfaces of the structures” does not describe a method of executing the generic placeholder “the predetermined processing”, but rather a method for measuring the contact angles. Although claims 1 and 11 also recite “increasing hydrophilicity of respective surfaces of the structures, by executing predetermined processing on the structures with a non-liquid substance” in the previous phrase, the functional language “with a non-liquid substance” is not considered to recite a sufficient structure to achieve the function. Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claims 1 and 11 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f): - irradiating the respective surface of the structures with UV rays until the permeation time to become constant ([0136-0137]), and/or- irradiating the respective surface of the structures with a plasma until the permeation time to become constant ([0151-0159]), and/or- irradiates the respective surface of the structures with oxygen or an allotrope of oxygen until the permeation time to become constant ([0163-0172]); and/or- removing oxide from the respective surface of the structures with an etching liquid, then supplying a rinsing liquid ([0173-0189]), wherein “the permeation time is a time period from when the processing liquid LQ adheres to the structures 63 to when the processing liquid LQ infiltrates into the space SP and reaches the surface 61a or the vicinity of the surface 61a of the substrate body 61” ([0106]) If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-11 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wood et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170194430), hereinafter “Wood”, in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170243736), hereinafter “Kobayashi”, Peng et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220302257), hereinafter “Peng”, and Sung et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190304841), hereinafter “Sung”:--Claims 1, 11: Wood teaches a method of manufacturing nanowire structures (abstract, [0001]), comprising:
i) forming a nanostructure comprising stack that includes alternate layers of silicon and a SiGe ([0060-0063]), then patterning the stack to form columns having source/drain structures ([0064], Fig. 5A);ii) selectively etching the sidewalls of the columns to form recesses on the sidewalls ([0066-0069], Fig. 5B);iii) optionally depositing a liner layer 523, such as silicon nitride or silicon oxide-containing, on the sidewalls, the deposition may be performed by ALD, CVD or a plasma process ([0073-0075], Fig. 5C);iv) optionally treating the liner layer 523 by using an oxygen plasma ([0102-0106]), then removing an excess portion of the liner layer 523 by using a wet etching or dry etching ([0107]);v) depositing a dielectric layer 524, such as silicon nitride or silicon oxide, on the sidewalls, the deposition may be performed by ALD, CVD or PECVD ([0076-0080], Fig. 5D2);vi) etching a portion of the dielectric layer 524 to expose the liner layer 523 by using a plasma ([0081-0084], Fig. 5E2);vii) optionally etching the remaining portion of the dielectric layer 524 by using a dry or wet etch process ([0097-0099]);viii) etching an excess portion of the liner layer 523 by using a wet clean or a plasma to form recesses on the sidewalls ([0085-0087],Fig. 5F);ix) growing a silicon layer in the recesses ([0108]). It is noted that the treating the nanostructures with the oxygen plasma in step ((iv) and the etching by using a plasma in step (vi) would increase the hydrophilicity of the surfaces of the nanostructure, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. It is noted that the depositions of liner layer 523 and dielectric layer 524 do not comprise any liquid. Although Wood discloses one column in Fig. 5A, Wood does not disclose a spacing between the plurality of columns. Peng teaches a method of fabricating a FinFET transistor in an Gate All Around structure ([0014]), comprising forming a stack of SiGe layers 102a alternate with Si layers 102b (Fig. 1, [0018]);forming a dummy gate dielectric layer 618 on the stack, the dummy gate dielectric layer 618 may be made of HfO2 (Fig. 6, [0033-0034]);removing a top Si layer 102b to expose a SiGe layer 102a on the stack (Fig. 15-16, [0050]);selectively etching the dummy gate dielectric layer 618 along the sidewall of the stack (Fig. 17-18, [0051-0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the plurality of columns in the invention of Wood as shown in Fig. 3 of Peng because although Wood disclose one column in Fig. 5A, Wood does not disclose a spacing between the plurality of columns, and Peng teaches that such columns formation would be effective. It is noted that the spacing between the columns has high aspect ratio Wood is silent about the details of the wet etching or wet cleaning of the liner layer 523 and dielectric layer 524 in steps iv), vi), vii) and viii).
Kobayashi teaches that when perform a cleaning of a substrate comprising high aspect ratio patterns after a chemical liquid etching step (Fig. 12), surface tension of liquid present between the pattern may cause the patterns to collapse ([0005]), and teaches to supply an organic solvent to replace a rinse liquid between the patterns, and heating the substrate to levitate the organic solvent above the patterns, then removing the levitated organic solvent (abstract, Fig. 12, 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Kobayashi to clean the silicon pillars in the invention of Wood because Kobayashi teaches that this would prevent the patterns to collapse during drying. It is noted that silicon and silicon nitride are hydrophobic, and silicon oxide is hydrophilic. Thus, the forming of silicon oxide liner and plasma treating the silicon oxide liner turns the silicon sidewall surface of the plurality of columns from hydrophobic to hydrophilic. The subsequent cleaning comprises supplying organic solvent to the silicon columns. Although Wood modified by Kobayashi and Peng is silent about the sidewalls having hydrophilicity corresponding to a contact angle when a permeation time for the processing liquid to permeate into a space between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures is constant, wherein the contact angle is defined by an angle of a surface of the processing liquid relative to one of the surfaces of the structures, since the cleaning the silicon columns described by Wood modified by Kobayashi is the same as recited in claim 1, the above hydrophilicity property of the silicon columns would be the same, in routine experimentations, as disclosed by Applicant. Regarding the limitation “the distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter”, Wood further teaches that the nanostructures comprises high aspect ratio fins in a FinFET device in an gate-all-around structure ([0005-0010, 0026]), and that the structure are shrinking in dimensions as density are increasing ([0005), but is silent about the spacing width between the nanostructures, and fails to teach the claimed feature that the distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter. However, since Wood teaches that the device is shrinking in dimension, and the widths of interconnects, such as vias, trenches, contacts, gate structures and other features, as well as the dielectric materials therebetween, decrease to 25 nm and 20 nm dimensions and beyond ([0005-0006]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to shrink the nanostructures in the invention of Wood so that the distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Alternately, Sung, also directed to a method of manufacturing a FinFET ([0002]) teaches that as FinFET technology is getting smaller, from 10 nm node to 5 nm node, the fin-to-fin spacing is getting smaller, from 22 nm to 5 nm (Table II, [0024]). It is noted that smaller node enables higher device density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture nanowire structures having distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter in the invention of Wood because Wood teaches that the structure are getting smaller as density are increasing, and Sung teaches that the structure is getting smaller such that fin-to-fin spacing keeps getting smaller, from 22 nm to 5 nm and beyond.--Claims 3, 4: It is noted that in step ii) the silicon nitride layer, which is hydrophobic, is exposed to a plasma during the HDP deposition of the silicon oxide layer, which is hydrophilic, is formed. The silicon nitride layer is then removed by the hot phosphoric acid, which is a liquid. It is noted that plasma would generate UV light emission.--Claim 5: It is noted that the depositing the silicon oxide layer requires a supply of an allotrope of oxygen.--Claim 6: It is noted that the organic solvent penetrating between the pillars would dissolve gas that is present there.--Claims 8, 9: Since the recess is about 20-200 A wide ([0060]) and the liner has a thickness 5-50A ([0074], Fig. 5A-C), the recess is narrow and has a high aspect ratio; therefore, it would have been obvious, in routine experimentations, that the increase in hydrophilicity would enable the organic solvent to permeate by capillary action into spaces between the pillars.--Claim 10: Since the silicon nitride layer 30 is removed, the width of the recess between pillars increases.
Claims 2 and 7 rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wood in view of Kobayashi, Peng and Sung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nowling et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140011367), hereinafter “Nowling”:--Claim 2: Wood modified by Kobayashi teaches the invention as above. Wood and Kobayashi fails to teach supplying a liquid to remove oxide from the substrate prior to step vi) Nowling, also directed to a method of etching silicon nitride layer from a semiconductor device by using phosphoric acid, teaches to perform a pre-treatment comprising exposing the substrate to an HF solution to remove a native oxide layer from the substrate prior to the etching the silicon nitride layer ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Nowling to remove a native oxide layer from the substrate prior to the etching the silicon nitride layer in the invention of Wood because Nowling teaches that this may be necessary.--Claim 7: It is noted that etching back the native silicon oxide layer over a portion of the silicon nitride would expose the silicon nitride hydrophobic, and increase the hydrophobicity of the surface in that portion. Although Nowling is silent about rinsing and drying the substrate after the etching the native silicon oxide by the HF solution, such rinsing and drying after an acid treatment is a standard practice in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 4, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:
--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Wood does not teach the amended feature “the plurality of structures are formed on a surface of the substrate with each distance between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures being 3 nm or shorter”, as recited in claims 1 and 11, this is not persuasive. Wood clearly teaches forming the nanostructures, then treat the nanostructures with a plasma or with an oxygen plasma, then etching the liner layer by a wet etchant, but is silent about distance between adjacent structures of the plurality of structures. However, since Wood teaches that the device is shrinking in dimension, and the widths of interconnects, such as vias, trenches, contacts, gate structures and other features, as well as the dielectric materials therebetween, decrease to 25 nm and 20 nm dimensions and beyond ([0005-0006]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to shrink the nanostructures in the invention of Wood so that the distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter because it’s been well established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Alternately, Sung, also directed to a method of manufacturing a FinFET ([0002]) teaches that as FinFET technology is getting smaller, from 10 nm node to 5 nm node, the fin-to-fin spacing is getting smaller, from 22 nm to 5 nm (Table II, [0024]). It is noted that smaller node enables higher device density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture nanowire structures having distance between adjacent nanostructures being 3 nm or shorter in the invention of Wood because Wood teaches that the structure are getting smaller as density are increasing, and Sung teaches that the structure is getting smaller such that fin-to-fin spacing keeps getting smaller, from 22 nm to 5 nm and beyond.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713