DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 June 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument/amendment to claim 1. Applicant claims the temperature range of “between 675 C and 850 C” during deposition and removal is critical (Remarks, page 8), and that the prior art of record does not teach this limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the specification as-filed does not comply with MPEP 716.02(d) II, wherein “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).”.
Applicant’s specification recites at ¶0053 “Moreover, the removal rate ratio increases according to an exponential function with decreasing pressure”, while Fig. 13 of the application shows the removal rate ratios at 700° C varying exponentially with pressure (x axis). The specification also recites in ¶0054 “temperature within the interior of the reaction chamber may be maintained at less than about 850° C., or less than about 800° C., or less than about 750° C., or even less than about 675° C”, while Fig. 14 also shows a linear relationship for the removal rate ratio to temperature at a pressure of 5 Torr (i.e. removal rate ratio is a result-effective variable dependent on temperature at a set pressure). This does not support the argument that the claimed temperature range is critical, and the argument is therefore not persuasive. As required in MPEP 2144.05 III A, “("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Regarding the argument that “Examiner has failed to provide “an articulated rational supporting the rejection,” required under MPMEP 2144.05 II B.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, since the Applicant has not established criticality of the claimed temperature range, nor has Applicant properly rebutted the showing that the claimed parameter was not recognized as “result-effective” as required in MPEP 2144.05 III C (rational cited on page 11 of the previous Office action (page 11), “Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the result-effective variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the result effective variables (such as temperature) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film. "[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)”.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification (¶0050-¶0054) states the temperature range of “temperature within the interior of the reaction chamber may be maintained at less than about 850 °C or less than about 800 °C, or less than about 750 °C, or even less than about 675 °C” is for the purpose of tuning the etching and deposition rate ratio (selectivity). This is the same motivation presented by Bauer in ¶0006 for the purpose of tuning selective deposition/etching by adjusting the result effective variables of temperature, pressure, and precursor flow rate.
The rejections have been updated below, accordingly.
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 1-5, 7, 9-15, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthias Bauer et al. (US 2011/0117732 A1; hereinafter Bauer).
Regarding Claim 1, Bauer teaches a method of forming a structure, comprising:
supporting a substrate (Bauer; Fig. 1; 10 also shown in Fig. 2A; wherein the substrate includes 117 as described in ¶0043) within a reaction chamber of a semiconductor processing system (as described in ¶0030), wherein the substrate has a recess with a bottom surface and a sidewall surface extending upwards from the bottom surface of the recess (Bauer; Fig. 2A; recess 114 in the substrate with a bottom surface and a sidewall surface);
depositing a film (Bauer; Fig. 2B; film 125+128) within the recess (114) and onto the bottom surface and the sidewall surface of the recess (as shown in Fig. 2B), the film having a bottom segment (Bauer; Fig. 2B; 125) overlaying the bottom surface of the recess and a sidewall segment (Bauer; Fig. 2B; 128) deposited onto the sidewall surface of the recess (as shown in Fig. 2B);
removing the sidewall segment (128) of the film while retaining at least a portion of the bottom segment (125) of the film within the recess (as shown in Bauer Fig. 2C); and
wherein removing the film comprises removing the sidewall segment (128) of the film from the sidewall surface more rapidly than removing the bottom segment (125) of the film from the bottom surface of the recess (as described in Bauer ¶0053 in view of Fig. 2B/2C).
Bauer does not expressly disclose wherein the sidewall segment and the bottom segment of the film are deposited and removed at a predetermined deposition and removal temperature that is between 675° C. and 850° C.
However, Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure for the same purpose as in the instant application.
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the temperature through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film. "[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). ("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))) MPEP 2144.05 III A.
Regarding Claim 2, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein depositing the film (125+128) comprises depositing the bottom segment of the film (125) onto the bottom surface more rapidly than depositing the sidewall segment of the film (128) onto the sidewall surface of the recess (as described in Bauer ¶0053: “The sidewall epitaxial layer 128 grows over a different crystallographic plane and tends to grow slower … and/or be more defective than the lower epitaxial layer 125”).
Regarding Claim 3, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sidewall segment (128) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are removed at a removal rate ratio that is between 5:1 and 25:1.
Bauer describes in ¶0053 that the deposition rate of the film at the bottom of the recess is greater than on the sidewall of the recess, and that the removal rate of the film on the sidewall of the recess is greater than the removal rate of the film at the bottom of the recess, but is silent about the removal rate ratio.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the removal rate ratio and the deposition rate ratio through routine experimentation in order to provide bottom-up growth of epitaxial material that is of high quality (Bauer; ¶0009, ¶0025) and tune the deposition and etching phases “to eliminate net growth on recess sidewalls while achieving net growth in the recess in a bottom-up fashion.” (Bauer ¶0054); wherein the tunable parameters noted in ¶0006 for the deposition rate and etching rate are the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure. "[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).
Regarding Claim 4, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom segment (125) and the sidewall segment (128) of the film are deposited at a deposition rate ratio that is between 1.1:1 and 2:1.
Bauer describes in ¶0053 that the deposition rate of the film at the bottom of the recess is greater than on the sidewall of the recess, and that the removal rate of the film on the sidewall of the recess is greater than the removal rate of the film at the bottom of the recess, but is silent about the removal rate ratio. Bauer also discloses in ¶0032 that the deposition rates can be tuned for various purposes such as step coverage, dopant incorporation, and throughput speed, etc.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the removal rate ratio and the deposition rate ratio through routine experimentation in order to provide bottom-up growth of epitaxial material that is of high quality (Bauer; ¶0009, ¶0025) and tune the deposition and etching phases “to eliminate net growth on recess sidewalls while achieving net growth in the recess in a bottom-up fashion.” (Bauer ¶0054); wherein the tunable parameters noted in ¶0006 for the deposition rate and etching rate are the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure. "[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).
Regarding Claim 5, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sidewall segment (128) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are removed at a predetermined removal pressure that is less than 10 torr (Bauer Table 1; 10-200 torr).
The prior art range abuts the claimed range. Although they are not identical or overlap, Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure, which is the same reason as in the instant application.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. MPEP 2144.05 II A states: "[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 III A, “("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the variables (such as pressure) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film.
Regarding Claim 7, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the sidewall segment (128) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are deposited at a predetermined deposition pressure that is less than 10 torr (Bauer Table 1; 10-200 torr).
The prior art range abuts the claimed range. Although they are not identical or overlap, Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure, which is the same reason as in the instant application.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. MPEP 2144.05 II A states: "[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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the variables (such as pressure) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film.
Regarding Claim 9, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein the sidewall segment (128) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are deposited and removed at a common pressure (10-200 torr), wherein the sidewall segment and the bottom segment of the film are deposited and removed at a common temperature (525-600 C) (as shown in Bauer Table A and described in ¶0054 and ¶0071; wherein the selective deposition process includes the selective epitaxial growth {depositing} and the etch back {removal}; and “process conditions such as chamber temperature, chamber pressure and carrier gas flow rates, are preferably substantially similar throughout the selective deposition process, thereby allowing throughput to be increased”. Also in ¶0033 “In a preferred embodiment, both the temperature and the pressure will remain constant such that the cyclical selective deposition and etch process takes place under isothermal and isobaric conditions, which helps to ensure a high throughput”).
Regarding Claim 10, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and further comprising flowing dichlorosilane (DCS), hydrochloric acid (HCl), and hydrogen (H2) gas through an interior of the reaction chamber (¶0032) to deposit the sidewall segment and the bottom segment of the film into the recess (as described in Bauer; ¶0034 states H2 will flow continuously during deposition/etching; ¶0035 states an etchant {HCl} is introduced with the precursor; and ¶0039 states the precursor is DCS).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and further comprising flowing hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrogen (H2) gas through an interior of the reaction chamber (¶0032) to remove the sidewall segment and a portion of the bottom segment of the film from within the recess (as shown in Bauer Table A; during the etch back portion of the selective deposition process, H2 and HCl flows are listed; also described in ¶0032-¶0036).
Regarding Claim 12, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein the bottom surface of the recess has a silicon 1 0 0 crystalline structure, wherein the sidewall surface of the recess has a silicon 1 1 0 crystalline structure (as described in ¶0043 and ¶0045).
Regarding Claim 13, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein the deposition operation and the removal operation comprise a first deposition/removal cycle, the method further comprising at least one second deposition/removal cycle (as described in Bauer in ¶0059).
Regarding Claim 14, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and further comprising filling the recess bottom-up from the bottom surface of the recess to an opening into the recess (as shown in Fig. 2C and 2F and as described in ¶0058).
Regarding Claim 15, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, and wherein removing the sidewall segment (128) from the sidewall surface comprises exposing the sidewall surface above a retained portion (125 is retained) of the bottom segment of the film from within the recess (as shown in Fig. 2B and 2C; wherein the removed sidewall portion 128 exposes a sidewall of the recess 114 above the retained portion 125).
Regarding Claim 20, Bauer teaches a finFET or a gate-all-around semiconductor device comprising a structure formed using the method of claim 1 (Bauer describes in ¶0026 and ¶0031 the method is used to form a FinFET device).
Regarding Claim 21, Bauer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the depositing a film comprises depositing the film at a pressure where a ratio of deposition rate onto a 110 crystalline surface to deposition rate onto a 100 crystalline surface is insensitive to temperature, and wherein removing the sidewall segment of the film comprises removing the sidewall segment of film at a temperature where a ratio of removal rate from the 110 crystalline surface to removal rate from the 100 crystalline surface increases exponentially with decreasing pressure.
A pressure of 1 to 50 torr and temperature of “less than 675 °C and less than 850 °C” satisfies this limitation. Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. MPEP 2144.05 II A states: "[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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the variables (such as temperature and pressure) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film under isobaric and isothermal conditions to ensure high throughput (Bauer ¶0033).
Regarding Claim 22, Bauer teaches the method of claim 21, but does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure is less than 10 torr.
The prior art range abuts the claimed range. Although they are not identical or overlap, Bauer notes in ¶0006 that the deposition rate and etching rate are tunable by adjusting the variables of precursor flow rate, temperature, and pressure, which is the same reason as in the instant application.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. MPEP 2144.05 II A states: "[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 III A, “("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the variables (such as temperature and pressure) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired deposition and etch rates of the film under isobaric and isothermal conditions to ensure high throughput (Bauer ¶0033).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shawn Thomas et al. (US 20090075029 A1; hereinafter Thomas).
Regarding Claim 1, Thomas teaches a method of forming a structure (Figs. 2-5D), comprising:
supporting a substrate (Fig. 2; substrate includes channel region 117 and recesses 114; ¶0038) within a reaction chamber of a semiconductor processing system (¶0008), wherein the substrate has a recess (114; ¶0038) with a bottom surface and a sidewall surface extending upwards from the bottom surface of the recess (as shown in Fig. 2);
depositing a film (120/125/130; ¶0039) within the recess (114) and onto the bottom surface and the sidewall surface of the recess, the film having a bottom segment (125) overlaying the bottom surface of the recess and a sidewall segment (130) deposited onto the sidewall surface of the recess, wherein the sidewall segment (130) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are deposited at a predetermined deposition temperature that is between 675 °C and 850 °C (¶0046 wherein etching and deposition temperatures match; 700° C);
removing the sidewall segment of the film (130) while retaining at least a portion of the bottom segment of the film (125) within the recess (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the sidewall segment (130) and the bottom segment (125) of the film are removed at a predetermined removal temperature that is between 675 °C and 850 °C (¶0046 wherein etching and deposition temperatures match; 700° C);
and wherein removing the film comprises removing the sidewall segment (130) of the film from the sidewall surface more rapidly than removing the bottom segment (125) of the film from the bottom surface of the recess (as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 in view of ¶0039-¶0040; wherein the film is conformally deposited to a same thickness as shown in Fig. 3; and the selective etch removes the sidewall portion of the film {130} while at least a portion of {125} remains. “According to an embodiment, the regions of amorphous or polycrystalline deposition 120 and the sidewall epitaxial deposition 130 are then selectively etched, thus resulting in the structure that is schematically illustrated in FIG. 4”).
Although Thomas teaches deposition and removal within the claimed range of 675° C to 850° C {700° C}, the disclosed temperature range of Thomas partially overlaps the claimed range (¶0046). Thomas discloses in ¶0047 that “the chamber temperature may be adjusted to deposit layers having a higher impurity concentration.” This establishes that the impurity concentration is a result-effective variable of the temperature.
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the temperature through routine experimentation to achieve the desired result-effective impurity concentration. "[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). ("[A] modification of a process parameter may be patentable if it ‘produce[s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." (citing Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955))) MPEP 2144.05 III A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kandabara Tapily (US 20170221718 A1) teaches a similar method (Fig. 2A-2H) of filling a trench bottom-up by depositing a layer (208A) in a trench (204) and removing a sidewall portion while retaining at least some of the bottom portion, and repeating the process until the trench is filled.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898