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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 4, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (U.S. 2012/0248550), and Ventzek et al (U.S. 2014/0356984).
Regarding Claim 1. Huang et al disclose a method for reducing a wet etch rate of flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) oxide layers in a semiconductor wafer (a dopant to reduce its etch rates [TITLE]), the method comprising: performing a plasma doping operation on the semiconductor wafer using a primary dopant gas and a diluent gas adapted to reduce a wet etch rate of the FCVD oxide layer, wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are supplied by a gas source of a plasma doping system ([0038], claims 1, 9-11), and wherein the diluent gas is provided in an amount of 0.01% - 5% by volume of a total amount of gas supplied by the gas source during the plasma doping operation ([0038], i.e. The percentage of the dopant-containing gas may be in a range from about 1% to about 100%; [0038], i.e. one or more dopant containing gases, such as CH4),
monitoring carbon levels in the semiconductor wafer ([0041]); and based on the monitored levels of carbon in the semiconductor wafer ([0041]), varying the amount of one of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source ([0041]) regulate an amount of carbon being implanted into the semiconductor wafer ([0041], i.e. The dosage setting on the system is varied from about 5E12 ions/ cm2 to about 7.5E15 ions/ cm2. The dosage setting range is selected to target dopant).
Huang et al fails to explicitly disclose performing real-time monitoring using the monitored levels in a feedforward manner by dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source.
However, Ventzek et al teaches performing real-time monitoring using the monitored levels in a feedforward manner ([0046], i.e. In operation 1324, a portion of the surface of the substrate is exposed to the doping plasma, to achieve a target dose of doping materials in the portion of the surface of the substrate. In operation 1328, one or more operating variables (or parameters) of the doping process is controlled in order to achieve one or more doping process objectives, namely, one or more of a target uniformity of dopant concentration, a target sheet resistance, target degree of dopant clustering, and/or target erosion of features on the substrate) by dynamically varying ([0043]), during the plasma doping operation ([0042]), the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source ([0043], i.e. The amount of oxygen and dopant may be effectively metered by fast mass flow controllers (MFC's) upstream of the processing chamber 1218 or by introducing only the desired amount of dopant and oxide into the crucible).
Since Huang et al and Ventzek et al teach plasma doping, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method for reducing a wet etch rate of flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) oxide layers in a semiconductor wafer as disclosed to modify Huang et al with the teachings of performing real-time monitoring using the monitored levels in a feedforward manner by dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source as disclosed by Ventzek et al. The use of In operation 1324, a portion of the surface of the substrate is exposed to the doping plasma, to achieve a target dose of doping materials in the portion of the surface of the substrate. In operation 1328, one or more operating variables (or parameters) of the doping process is controlled in order to achieve one or more doping process objectives, namely, one or more of a target uniformity of dopant concentration, a target sheet resistance, target degree of dopant clustering, and/or target erosion of features on the substrate where the amount of oxygen and dopant may be effectively metered by fast mass flow controllers (MFC's) upstream of the processing chamber 1218 or by introducing only the desired amount of dopant and oxide into the crucible in Ventzek et al provides for a doping plasma used to expose a portion of the substrate surface while controlling operating variables to achieve target uniformity of dopant concentration, sheet resistance, degree of dopant clustering, and erosion of features on the substrate (Ventzek et al, [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 2. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the primary dopant gas is He ([0038], claims 11) and the diluent gas is a carbon-containing gas ([0038], claims 9, 11).
Regarding Claim 3. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 2 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the diluent gas is selected from a group consisting of CH4, CO, CO2, and CF2 ([0038], i.e. , one or more dopant containing gases, such as CH4).
Regarding Claim 4. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Nguyen et al teaches wherein the diluent gas is oxygen ([0043], i.e. The amount of oxygen and dopant may be effectively metered).
Regarding Claim 5. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are provided to the gas source in separate containers (claim 24).
Regarding Claim 6. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are provided to the gas source in a common, pre-mixed container (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 7. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses further comprising heating the wafer to a temperature in a range of 350 degrees C - 500 degrees C ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 8. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses further comprising subjecting the wafer to an electrical bias in a range of 0V - 10KV ([0038], i.e. the bias voltage is in a range from about 0 KV to about 10 KV).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-8.
On page 6 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Huang et al fails to disclose real-time monitoring of a wafer during a doping operation and dynamically varying the gas based on those real-time measurements.
Examiner respectfully points out that Ventzek et al, not Huang et al, discloses applicant’s argued claim limitation. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Ventzek et al fails to disclose real-time monitoring of a wafer during a doping operation and dynamically varying the gas based on those rea-time measurements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. Examiner respectfully points out that Ventzek et al discloses applicant’s argued claim limitations as cited above.
On page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that neither references teach nor suggest performing real-time monitoring of carbon levels in the semiconductor wafer and using those monitored carbon levels in a feedforward manner to dynamically vary the gas supply during the operation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. Huang et al disclose the carbon levels and Ventzek et al discloses real-time monitoring of levels in the semiconductor wafer and using those monitored levels in a feedforward manner to dynamically vary the gas supply during the operation.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheng (U.S. 5,354,381) discloses Plasma Immersion Ion Implantation apparatus.
Draeger et al (U.S. 8,846,536) discloses flowable oxide film with tunable wet etch rate.
Al-Buyati et al (U.S. 2005/0136604) discloses Semiconductor On Insulator Vertical Transistor Fabrication And Doping Process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
