Attorney’s Docket Number: P20110065US02/24061.1770US03
Filing Date: 7/7/2022
Claimed Priority Date: 8/25/2017 (US 15/686,716)
6/16/2011 (US 13/161,649)
Inventors: van Dal et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 5/27/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a rejection as subjected to AIA instead 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 5/27/2026, in reply to the Office action in paper no. 7, mailed on 2/27/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-16 and 21-24.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second Ge-comprising epitaxial layer recited in claims 12 and 13 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors, at the time of the invention, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “epitaxially growing a second Ge-comprising layer”. The specification, as originally filed, failed to support these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 21-23 and 1-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Pillarisetty (US 2011/0147711).
Regarding claim 21, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., figs. 5-8) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Forming a dielectric layer STI over a silicon substrate
Forming a trench in the dielectric layer
Forming a first Ge-comprising layer Spacer and a second germanium-comprising layer QW in the trench, and
Etching back the dielectric layer STI such that the second Ge-comprising layer QW extends a height above the dielectric layer
wherein:
the first layer Spacer is between the second layer QW and the substrate
the first Spacer and second QW layers have different compositions
Regarding claim 22, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows the method further comprising the step of forming a gate Gate that wraps a portion of the second layer QW extending above the dielectric layer STI.
Regarding claim 23, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., fig. 7) further shows the method comprising a step of forming a Si-comprising layer over the dielectric layer and the second layer before forming the gate. The Si-comprising layer wraps an entirety of the portion of the second layer extending above the dielectric layer to cover first and second sidewalls and a top of the second layer extending above the dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 1, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., figs. 5-8) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a method comprising:
Forming a dielectric layer STI over a semiconductor substrate
Forming a trench in the dielectric layer
Forming a first semiconductor layer Spacer in the trench, and
Forming a second semiconductor layer QW in the trench, and
Etching back the dielectric layer STI to expose a portion of the second layer
wherein:
The first Spacer and second QW layers have different first and second compositions, respectively, and
The second layer QW includes Ge
Regarding claim 2, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows the method further comprising the step of forming a gate structure Gate over a top surface and sidewall of a channel portion of the exposed portion of the second layer QW.
Regarding claim 3, Pillarisetty shows the method further comprising the step of forming a third semiconductor layer that wraps the exposed portion of the second layer and has a third composition different from the second composition.
Regarding claim 4, Pillarisetty shows the method further comprising the step of forming a gate structure over top and sidewall surfaces of a portion of the third layer.
Regarding claim 5, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., par. 0019/ll.13-16) shows that forming the first and second layers include epitaxial growth processes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 24 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pillarisetty.
Regarding claim 24, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows that forming the first Spacer and second QW Ge-comprising layers includes forming a portion of a fin structure. He also shows the fin structure having a length and a width but fails to specify the width and length of the fin.
However, differences in height, width and length will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the fin dimensions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Pillarisetty.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pillarisetty in view of Hussain (US 2010/0081278).
Regarding claim 9, Pillarisetty (see, e.g., par.0031/l.6) shows that the step of etching the dielectric layer includes performing a dry etch on the dielectric layer but fails to specify the step including an anisotropic etch. Hussain (see, e.g., par. 0090) teaches that dry etches, like the one of Pillarisetty, are inherently anisotropic and faster, resulting in a better option of more vertical wall in high-aspect ratio structures.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an anisotropic etch for the dry etch step of Pillarisetty, as taught by Hussain, to increase the etching speed of the dielectric layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11 and 14-16 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues:
The drawings and specification show the second Ge-comprising epitaxial layer recited in claims 12 and 13. See, e.g., fig. 10G, which illustrates the second Ge-comprising layer 406f. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings and §112 rejection of the claims should be withdrawn.
The examiner responds:
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 10. Claim 10 recites a Ge-comprising layer and a Ge-comprising substrate extension. The examiner agrees that these are illustrated in fig. 10G, namely, Ge-comprising layer 406f and substrate extension 404c, respectively. However, claims 12 and 13, further recite that the Ge-comprising layer 406f comprises first and second Ge-comprising layers. The originally filed drawings and specification neither illustrate nor describe layer 406f as comprising first and second Ge-Comprising layers. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings and §112(a) rejection of claims 12 and 13 are maintained.
The applicant argues:
Pillarisetty fails to teach the claimed limitations of “forming a trench in a dielectric” and “forming first and second semiconductor layers in the trench.”
The examiner responds:
This argument is not persuasive because it improperly equates the claimed method with a particular fabrication sequence that is not expressly required by the claim. The claim recites the formation of a trench in a dielectric and the formation of first and second semiconductor layers in the trench, but does not expressly require that the semiconductor layers be formed only after the dielectric trench is formed, or otherwise require the particular chronological sequence advocated by the applicant. In particular, the claim does not recite “forming the trench in the dielectric prior to forming the first and second semiconductor layers” or “subsequently forming” the semiconductor layers in the trench. Applicant’s argument therefore seeks to import a particular order of fabrication into the claim that is not recited.
Pillarisetty teaches forming a fin of stacked semiconductor layers and forming a dielectric material around the fin. Thus, Pillarisetty teaches the same claimed structural relationship in which the first and second semiconductor layers are disposed in a trench in the dielectric layer. The fact that Pillarisetty arrives at the claimed relationship through a different fabrication sequence does not, by itself, establish that the claimed method excludes Pillarisetty’s process.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is based on a particular manner of manufacturing the claimed structure rather than a limitation expressly recited in the claim. Absent a limitation requiring the particular sequence asserted by Applicant, the fact that Pillarisetty forms the semiconductor stack before depositing the dielectric, rather than forming the dielectric and then forming the semiconductor layers, does not distinguish the claimed subject matter from the teachings of Pillarisetty.
Conclusion
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the mailing date of this final action.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:30 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
Prosecution Insights