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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election filed 5/19/2025. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims 4-5, 13, and 18-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species Ia and IIa is acknowledged.
With regards to claim 14 specifically, the Examiner agrees that it recites subject matter associated with the elected invention. However, it currently depends on withdrawn claim 13. The Examiner believes that claim 14 should instead depend on claim 12, as discussed in the objection below. Claim 14 will be examined accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because its dependence on claim 13 appears to be erroneous. Indeed, the specification only discloses ammonia in combination with dichlorosilane (para. [0046]), which is a limitation of claim 12 that is distinct from claim 13. Furthermore, in the election filed 5/19/2025, Applicant identified claim 14 as being included in the claims that represent the elected invention. However, it is not possible for a claim to be both drawn to an elected invention and dependent on a claim directed to a non-elected invention. Thus, it appears claim 14 should rather depend on claim 12. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “using the terminal groups to deposit a dielectric material”. It is not clear in what way the terminal groups are “used”, or how to “use” them.
Claims 16-17 and 20 recite the same limitation via dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi et al. (US 2014/0213037, cited in IDS) in view of Niskanen et al. (US 2014/0273531, cited in IDS), Kim et al. (US 2002/0048635, cited in IDS) and Chen et al. (US 2014/0199854).
Pertaining to claim 1, LiCausi shows, with reference to FIG. 2-3, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
depositing a mask (127) over a semiconductor substrate (126);
using the mask to form a fin (124) from the semiconductor substrate (para. [0014], lines 11-17), the fin comprising a first sidewall (FIG. 2); and
depositing a dielectric material (140) on the first sidewall and the mask using an atomic layer deposition process (para. [0015]).
LiCausi fails to show, after the using the mask to form the fin, treating exposed surfaces to reduce an atomic deposition growth rate difference of the dielectric material between the mask and the fin.
However, Niskanen teaches that, for a method in which a silicon nitride film is deposited on a fin by ALD (para. [0024], [0102], [0167]), a pretreatment is performed prior to providing the first precursor of the deposition process in order to provide a desired surface termination (para. [0110]). Meanwhile, Kim teaches in para. [0022] – [0024] that, prior to formation of a thin film by ALD, a pretreatment is performed to provide a desired surface termination. This pretreatment includes exposure to nitrogen gas or oxygen gas (para. [0032]). The surface is thereby optimized for deposition of a thin film by ALD, including a silicon nitride thin film (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a pretreatment to the fin structure of LiCausi, as taught by Niskanen and Kim, prior to the ALD process to form the thin film, with the motivation that such a pretreatment prevents the generation of physical defects in the thin film (Kim, para. [0025]). As evidenced by Chen in e.g. para. [0017], the effect of such a pretreatment provides for a same surface condition across different materials, reducing the growth rate difference between them.
Pertaining to claim 2, LiCausi shows depositing the mask comprises depositing silicon nitride (para. [0015]).
Pertaining to claims 6 and 7, the claims are obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the method of LiCausi in view of Niskanen, Kim and Chen within the claimed process ranges, since it has been held that discovering an 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).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Niskanen, Kim and Chen as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Verghese et al. (US 2007/0098894, cited in IDS).
LiCausi in view of Niskanen, Kim and Chen teaches the method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach treating with NF3.
However, Verghese teaches in para. [0046] that NF3 is a known material for surface terminal modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute NF3, as taught by Verghese, for the nitrogen gas taught by LiCausi in view of Niskanen, Kim and Chen, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Huang (US 9,530,868), Niskanen, Kim and Chen.
Pertaining to claim 8, LiCausi shows, with reference to FIG. 2-3, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
providing a fin (124/127) over a substrate (126), the fin comprising:
a first semiconductor fin (124);
a first mask (127) over the first semiconductor fin; and
depositing a first dielectric material (140) using an atomic layer deposition process (para. [0015]).
LiCausi fails to show a second mask over the first mask, the second mask being a different material than the first mask; and treating each of the first semiconductor fin, the first mask, and the second mask to minimize differences in atomic layer deposition rates of a first dielectric material before depositing the first dielectric material.
However, Huang teaches in col. 2, lines 51-58 that, for a similar mask structure used to pattern fins into a semiconductor substrate, the mask layer may be a single layer like LiCausi or, alternatively, may be a multi-layer mask such as one including a silicon oxide layer over a silicon nitride layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the single layer mask of LiCausi for the multi-layer mask taught by Huang, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Meanwhile, Niskanen teaches that, for a method in which a silicon nitride film is deposited on a fin by ALD (para. [0024], [0102], [0167]), a pretreatment is performed prior to providing the first precursor of the deposition process in order to provide a desired surface termination (para. [0110]). Meanwhile, Kim teaches in para. [0022] – [0024] that, prior to formation of a thin film by ALD, a pretreatment is performed to provide a desired surface termination. This pretreatment includes exposure to nitrogen gas or oxygen gas (para. [0032]). The surface is thereby optimized for deposition of a thin film by ALD, including a silicon nitride thin film (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a pretreatment to the fin structure of LiCausi in view of Huang, as taught by Niskanen and Kim, prior to the ALD process to form the thin film, with the motivation that such a pretreatment prevents the generation of physical defects in the thin film (Kim, para. [0025]). As evidenced by Chen in e.g. para. [0017], the effect of such a pretreatment provides for a same surface condition across different materials, reducing the growth rate difference between them.
Pertaining to claims 9 and 10, as noted above, Huang teaches a silicon oxide layer over a silicon nitride layer (col. 2, lines 51-58).
Pertaining to claim 11, LiCausi shows etching the first dielectric material to form spacers adjacent to the fin (FIG. 11).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Huang, Niskanen, Kim and Chen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bentley et al. (US 9,299,775).
Although LiCausi in view of Huang, Niskanen, Kim and Chen does not specify the process gases used to deposit the SiN film by ALD, Bentley teaches in col. 4, lines 20-22 that dichlorosilane is used for providing the Si and ammonia is used for providing the nitrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try dichlorosilane and ammonia, as taught by Bentley, for the precursors used to form SiN by ALD, as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim.
Pertaining to claim 15, LiCausi shows, with reference to FIG. 2-3, a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
depositing silicon nitride (127) onto a semiconductor substrate (126);
patterning the silicon nitride and the semiconductor substrate to form a fin (para. [0014], lines 11-22), the fin comprising both silicon nitride (127) and silicon (124); and
depositing a dielectric material (140) on both the silicon nitride and the silicon.
LiCausi fails to show adding nitrogen to the silicon without significantly reacting with the silicon nitride, wherein after the adding nitrogen the fin has terminal groups which are the same across the silicon nitride and the silicon.
However, Niskanen teaches that, for a method in which a silicon nitride film is deposited on a fin by ALD (para. [0024], [0102], [0167]), a pretreatment is performed prior to providing the first precursor of the deposition process in order to provide a desired surface termination (para. [0110]). Meanwhile, Kim teaches in para. [0022] – [0024] that, prior to formation of a thin film by ALD, a pretreatment is performed to provide a desired surface termination. This pretreatment includes exposure to nitrogen gas (para. [0032]), thereby adding nitrogen to the silicon (para. [0032]) (reaction of SiN mask with inert N2 gas would not be expected). The surface is thereby optimized for deposition of a thin film by ALD, including a silicon nitride thin film (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a pretreatment including nitrogen to the fin structure of LiCausi, as taught by Niskanen and Kim, prior to the ALD process to form the thin film, with the motivation that such a pretreatment prevents the generation of physical defects in the thin film (Kim, para. [0025]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Huang.
Although LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim makes use of a single layer mask, Huang teaches in col. 2, lines 51-58 that, for a similar mask structure used to pattern fins into a semiconductor substrate, the mask layer may be a single layer like LiCausi or, alternatively, may be a multi-layer mask such as one including a silicon oxide layer over a silicon nitride layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the single layer mask of LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim for the multi-layer mask taught by Huang, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Verghese.
LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to explicitly teach treating with NF3.
However, Verghese teaches in para. [0046] that NF3 is a known material for surface terminal modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute NF3, as taught by Verghese, for the nitrogen gas taught by LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim, as the court has held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Applying the teaching of Verghese to LiCausi in view of Niskanen and Kim would be expected to form SiNF2, as it would be the result of exposing the NF3 taught by Verghese to the silicon material of LiCausi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896