DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on October 21, 2025, has been entered.
Claims 17 and 21 are amended; claims 1-16 are canceled.
The applicant contends that although Arai discloses the use of separate anisotropic and isotropic etching chamber, the reference does not suggest the claimed feature of performing the anisotropic etch before the isotropic etch (p. 8).
In response, the examiner notes that the reference cited immediately prior to Arai, Moon, already discloses the sequential steps of anisotropic etching, isotropic etching, and epitaxial deposition [0134]. Because Moon is silent regarding the physical organization of the etching steps, the Office avails Arai to demonstrate the advantage of providing distinct chambers dedicated exclusively to anisotropic and isotropic etching, respectively. Of course, there is no logical reason that the provision of dedicated chambers ought to nullify the ordering of Moon’s operations; thus, Moon’s execution of anisotropic etching followed by isotropic etching may proceed unchanged within Arai’s dedicated chambers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17, from which claim 20 depends, has been amended to read: “wherein the semiconductor substrate is not subjected to a pre-clean process between formation of the cavity and the first selective epitaxial growth process.” This limitation, however, is commensurate with the content of claim 20. As such, claim 20 fails to further limit claim 17. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
According to a First Grounds of Rejection:
Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., US 2007/0097383, in view of Arai et al., US 5,164,034, Moon et al., US 2017/0186603, Oda, US 2003/0045063, Fan et al., WO 2008/105322, and Chopra et al., US 2008/0182075.
Claim 17: Nguyen discloses a processing tool for forming a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1):
A central transfer station (105) having a plurality of surrounding processing chambers including etching (104), deposition (102), and metrology (110) stations [0020-22];
A robot (140) within the central transfer station configured to move a substrate between the plurality of processing chambers [0021];
A controller (190) connected to each part of the tool, including a configuration governing the transfer of the substrate from a processing chamber to the metrology station [0022].
It should be noted that those limitations drawn to the content and configuration of the material disposed on the substrate are not patentable, as expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)). In other words, the article worked upon by the apparatus, e.g., the configuration of a substrate layer, is not patentable content in an apparatus claim. For example, the sixth paragraph of claim 17 defines an etch process which exposes a “surface disposed between an existing structure of the semiconductor device and a bulk semiconductor portion.” The features of this limitation are aspects of the substrate rather than aspects of the apparatus; as such, these features do not qualify as patentable subject matter. Characteristics exclusive to the article worked upon by an apparatus are, by definition, external to the scope of the apparatus and cannot serve as a basis of patentability for said apparatus. The operator can simply provide a workpiece bearing the claimed characteristics.
Claim 17 recites two etching chambers and two deposition chambers. As noted above, Nguyen discloses a deposition chamber (102) and a first etching chamber (104), but the reference is silent regarding the auxiliary chamber’s (106) potential deployment as the second etching chamber. In supplementation, Moon describes an initial anisotropic etch process followed by an isotropic etch [0134-135]. Subsequently, Moon performs an epitaxial deposition step [0137]. Although strongly implied given the different phases of the two etch processes, Moon does not explicitly state that the isotropic and anisotropic processes proceed in different chambers. Arai, however, contemplates a processing technique requiring both anisotropic and isotropic etch steps (Abstract). For purposes of efficiency, a first chamber is dedicated to anisotropic etching and a second chamber is dedicated to a subsequent isotropic etch (2, 30-40). It would have been obvious to designate chambers 104 and 106 of Nguyen for anisotropic and isotropic etching, respectively, while utilizing chamber 102 for epitaxial deposition, since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill. Further, conscripting a programmable controller to execute the processing method elaborated by Moon would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, as it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192).
Concerning the second deposition chamber, Oda discloses an apparatus for the sequential deposition of SEG layers in first and second deposition chambers (Fig. 2). By providing dedicated chambers for both deposition steps, the type of deposition within each can be varied according to the needs of the process. For instance, in one embodiment, Oda applies a p-type film in one chamber and an n-type layer in the second [0069]. It would have been obvious, then, to provide dedicated chambers for each deposition step to segregate different processing environments.
Continuing, Nguyen avails an optical beam (182) to measure the critical dimensions of an etched feature [0028]. It is unclear, however, if this technique encompasses the claimed procedure of “refractometry.” In supplementation, Fan endorses a method of measuring distance availing the technique of refractometry (Abstract). As with the primary reference, Fan emits a beam from a light source (1) which is ultimately collected by a receiver (6), but rather than the beam simply reflecting off the target, it is refracted or branched into multiple beams which are then analyzed comparatively (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to adopt this scheme of distance measurement within Nguyen’s system, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, the references cited thus far are silent regarding the content and concentration of the dopant. Chopra, though, describes an epitaxial growth step which provides phosphorus at a concentration of 8x1020 atoms/cm3, thereby demonstrating the viability of this value for doping purposes [0057]. It would have been obvious to use this value as a benchmark during the prior art doping process, as using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 19: Nguyen performs each of etching, deposition, and metrology within the same vacuum environment of the processing tool (100) [0020].
Claim 20: A pre-clean process can simply be omitted at the discretion of the operator.
Claim 21: Chopra prescribes the deposition of an SiCP material [0029].
According to a Second Grounds of Rejection:
Claims 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al., US 2017/0330960, in view of Nguyen, Arai, and Fan.
Claims 17, 20: Bauer discloses a processing tool for forming a semiconductor device, comprising:
Performing an anisotropic etch process (302) on a semiconductor material to expose a surface of the material disposed between an existing structure and a bulk semiconductor portion ([0009]; Fig. 3);
Subsequently performing an isotropic etch process (303) on an exposed sidewall of the substrate to recess the semiconductor material disposed between the existing structure and the bulk semiconductor portion to form a cavity [0009];
Subsequently perform a first selective epitaxial growth process (305) in a first deposition chamber on a surface of the cavity and form a layer of deposited material on the surface of the cavity [0046];
Wherein the semiconductor substrate is not subjected to a pre-clean process between formation of the cavity and the first selective epitaxial growth process [0039];
Subsequently perform a second selective epitaxial growth process in a second deposition chamber to form a doped region comprising phosphorus and having a dopant concentration of 1x1020 atoms/cm3 [0051].
Although Bauer alludes to a multi-processing platform for executing the aforementioned processing steps, the apparatus is not depicted [0040]. In supplementation, Nguyen discloses an exemplary cluster tool with dedicated chambers for both etching and deposition. As shown by Figure 1, Nguyen’s platform comprises a central transfer station (105) containing a robot (140) configured to move a substrate between a plurality of processing chambers [0020-21]. In addition, Nguyen provides a controller (190) coupled to each part of the tool, as well as an in situ metrology station (110) [0022]. It would have been obvious to execute Bauer’s processing steps within a platform organized like Nguyen’s cluster tool in order to efficiently transfer substrates between a plurality of processing sites, thereby improving operation economy.
Nguyen, however, does not explicitly disclose dedicated anisotropic and isotropic etch chambers. Arai contemplates a processing technique requiring both anisotropic and isotropic etch steps (Abstract). For purposes of efficiency, a first chamber is dedicated to anisotropic etching and a second chamber is dedicated to a subsequent isotropic etch (2, 30-40). It would have been obvious to designate chambers 104 and 106 of Nguyen for anisotropic and isotropic etching, respectively, since combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, Nguyen avails an optical beam (182) to measure the critical dimensions of an etched feature [0028]. It is unclear, however, if this technique encompasses the claimed procedure of “refractometry.” In supplementation, Fan endorses a method of measuring distance availing the technique of refractometry (Abstract). As with the primary reference, Fan emits a beam from a light source (1) which is ultimately collected by a receiver (6), but rather than the beam simply reflecting off the target, it is refracted or branched into multiple beams which are then analyzed comparatively (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to adopt this scheme of distance measurement within Nguyen’s system, since applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 19: The operations of Bauer’s apparatus are performed under vacuum [0048].
Claim 21: Bauer deposits a SiCP material on the surface of the cavity (claim 7).
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Holtkamp et al., US 2007/0274810. Holtkamp discloses a cluster tool comprising a central transfer station (16), a robot (20) within the central transfer station, a first processing chamber for etching (PM), and a second processing chamber for deposition (Fig. 1; [0026]). In addition, Holtkamp provides a metrology station [0033].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716