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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0398814 (as cited in previous Office Action, but different embodiment).
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];
forming 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).
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 5, Hung teaches the dopant precursor comprises phosphorous [0033].
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 10, Hung teaches removing defective silicon-containing material 322 formed on silicon-nitride material formed on the substrate (figure 3E).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0398814.
Regarding claim 2, Hung fails 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 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 9, Hung teaches oxidizing the substrate increases a doping 321 depth in the silicon-containing material (as shown in figure 3D), but fails 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).
Claim(s) 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al, US Patent Application Publication 2006/0286774 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Hung fails to teach the silicon- containing precursor comprises silane (SiH4), disilane (Si2H6), trisilane (Si3H8), tetrasilane (Si4H10), dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2), or trichlorosilane (SiHCl3) and the dopant precursor comprises boron.
However, Singh teaches the silicon- containing precursor comprises silane (SiH4), disilane (Si2H6), trisilane (Si3H8), tetrasilane (Si4H10), dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2), or trichlorosilane (SiHCl3) [0019] because silane derivatives are generally-known precursors for making a silicon-containing layer in a deposition process. Further, Yang teaches that boron [0158] is a generally-known dopant that is included in a silicon-containing layer.
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 Singh with that of Hung because silane is a generally-known precursor for making a silicon-containing layer and
Boron is a generally-known dopant that is included in a silicon-containing layer
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, Singh teaches the etchant precursor comprises an oxygen-containing precursor or a chlorine-containing precursor [0012] 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 Singh with that of Hung because chlorine is an alternative, yet generally-known material that is commonly used in the art for etching semiconductor material.
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 this 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) 22 January 2026 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.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the cited prior art of Hung fails to teach the amended limitations, it is noted that [0033] of Hung teaches using hydrogen fluoride as “an additional precursor that may further interact with one or more silicon containing precursors or other deposition precursors or carrier gases to implant dopant particles into the silicon material being formed”. Hydrogen fluoride is also a known etchant gas that is conventionally-used in the art (See Syverson, US Patent 4,857,142, claim 6).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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