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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7 August 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0398814 (as cited in previous Office Action) in view of Moffat et al, US Patent Application Publication 2007/0117414
Regarding claim 1, Hung teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing a silicon-containing precursor ([0032], which teaches a silicon-containing layer, which would require a silicon-containing precursor), an etchant precursor (hydrogen fluoride, [0033]) and a dopant precursor [0033] to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (114A-D in figure 1), wherein a substrate 305 is disposed within the semiconductor processing chamber, and wherein a silicon-containing material is formed on the substrate (Note: [0028] teaches the substrate may be a layer of silicon germanium on a silicon substrate, which would meet the limitations of this claim);
contacting the silicon-containing material with the silicon-containing precursor, the etchant precursor, and the dopant precursor [0032-0033] to form a doped silicon-containing material 320 on the silicon-containing material (figure 3C);
subsequent to forming the doped silicon-containing material, oxidizing the substrate, wherein the oxidizing forms an oxidized doped silicon- containing material 320/322 (figure 3D); and
subsequent to oxidizing the substrate, etching the oxidized doped silicon-containing material (figure 3E).
Hung fails to teach forming plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor, the etchant precursor, and the dopant precursor and the plasma effluents contact the silicon-containing material to form the doped silicon-containing material.
However, Moffat teaches a plasma may be used to form a doped silicon-containing layer. A carrier gas, etchant gas, silicon source, dopant source and/or the like is used to form a plasma effluent and is supplied to the epitaxial chamber to form the doped silicon-containing layer (see [0030] and figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moffat with that of Hung because it is generally known in the art that a plasma may be used to form a doped silicon-containing layer.
Regarding claim 2, Hung and Moffat fail to teach a pressure within the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 760 Torr
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum pressure of the process because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges 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 tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Hung teaches a temperature within the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 1200 0C [0047-0049]
Regarding claim 4, Moffat teaches the silicon- containing precursor comprises silane (SiH4), disilane (Si2H6), trisilane (Si3H8), tetrasilane (Si4H10), dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2), or trichlorosilane (SiHCl3) [0031].
Regarding claim 5, Hung teaches the dopant precursor comprises phosphorous [0033].
Regarding claim 6, Moffat teaches the dopant precursor comprises boron [0032].
Regarding claim 7, Hung teaches providing an etchant precursor with the silicon-containing precursor and the dopant precursor [0037], but fails to teach the etchant precursor comprises an oxygen-containing precursor or a chlorine-containing precursor
However, Moffat teaches the etchant precursor comprises an oxygen-containing precursor or a chlorine-containing precursor [0032] because chlorine is an alternative, yet generally known material that is commonly used in the art for etching semiconductor material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Moffat with that of Hung because chlorine is an alternative, yet generally-known material that is commonly used in the art for etching semiconductor material.
Regarding claim 8, Hung teaches oxidizing the substrate comprises contacting the substrate with an oxygen-containing precursor or treating the substrate with a laser [0034].
Regarding claim 9, Hung teaches oxidizing the substrate increases a doping 321 depth in the silicon-containing material (as shown in figure 3D). Hung and Moffat fail to teach the depth is greater than or about 10 nm.
However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the doping depth because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges 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 tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 10, Hung teaches removing defective silicon-containing material 322 formed on silicon-nitride material formed on the substrate (figure 3E).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the 3D 2 DRAM structure further comprises: a silicon-and-germanium-containing material deposited above and below the silicon-containing material; and a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material extending from the silicon-and- germanium-containing material....”.
With regards to claim 11, the cited prior art(s) of record teach all of the limitations presented, but fail to recite the limitation above. Chen (et al, US Patent 8,487,354) teaches a limitation of a semiconductor device that may be used in a RAM structure (such as a 3D RAM) which includes a silicon-and-germanium-containing material 350 deposited above and below the silicon-containing material (portions of substrate 202 in figure 6, wherein this limitation is met when the figure 6 is turned in a 90 degree angle); and a silicon-and-germanium-containing material 216 deposited above and below the silicon-containing material (figure 6). However, there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation in which to combine Chen with Hung in order to meet the limitations of the claim.
Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 11-13 and 15-17 have been found to be allowable
Regarding claim 18, figure 6 of Chen teaches semiconductor structure comprising: a silicon-containing substrate 202; a silicon-and-germanium-containing material 250 extending into recesses formed in the silicon-containing substrate; a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material 216a extending from the silicon-and- germanium-containing material. Chen fails to teach the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material defines a channel; and a doped silicon-containing material within the channel extending from the silicon- containing substrate. After searching. no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of these claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 18-20 have been found to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights