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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II, with claims 1-10 indicated by Applicant to read thereon, in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/14/2025.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 17/980,900 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim is within the scope of the cited prior art’s claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cathey Jr, U.S. Patent No. 5,354,698.
Re claim 1. Cathey Jr. discloses a method of treating a semiconductor substrate 18, comprising, in a beamline ion implanter 16 (fig. 1): exposing a substrate surface of the semiconductor substrate 18 to a plasma clean (e.g., to hydrogen plasma 38 for a duration of 15 seconds, col. 4, lines 26-35, 65 and fig. 1); exposing the substrate surface to a hydrogen treatment (e.g., to hydrogen plasma 38 for a duration of another 15 seconds, col. 4, lines 26-35, 65 and fig. 1) from a plasma source (col. 4, lines 9-12 and/or hydrogen plasma) ; and exposing the semiconductor substrate 18 to an implant process after the hydrogen treatment (e.g., col. 5, lines 8-43 and fig. 1), wherein the semiconductor substrate is maintained under vacuum over a process duration spanning the plasma clean, the hydrogen treatment, and the implant process (see the abstract and/or col. 5, line 11 etc), see fig. 1 and cols. 1-8 for more details.
Re claim 2. The method of claim 1, comprising: wherein the implant process comprises introducing a dopant element into the semiconductor substrate (fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 35-40).
Re claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the implant process comprises a pre amorphizing implant (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45implanting B, P, As @ time t=t1 is considered amorphization implant), the method further comprising performing a dopant implant process to introduce a dopant into the semiconductor substrate after the pre amorphizing implant (e.g., implanting B, P, As @ time tn).
Re claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the substrate surface includes a native oxide (e.g., col. 2, line 55-60), before the plasma clean, and wherein the native oxide is removed after the plasma clean (e.g., col. 5, lines 5-8).
Re claim 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the plasma clean comprises: removing the native oxide by plasma etching (e.g., at least part of the native oxide is removed for a duration of 15 seconds, col. 4, lines 26-35, 65 and fig. 1); and exposing the substrate surface to the hydrogen treatment after the native oxide is removed (e.g., to hydrogen plasma 38 for a duration of another 15 seconds, col. 4, lines 26-35, 65 and fig. 1).
Re claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen treatment and the implant process (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45; implanting B, P, As @ time t=t1 ) are performed as an implant cycle, wherein the implant cycle is repeated one (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45; implanting B, P, As @ time t=tn ) or more times to implant a target implant dose level into the semiconductor substrate (fig. 1 also see col 1, lines 18-21).
Re claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the plasma clean, the hydrogen treatment and the implant process (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45; implanting B, P, As @ time t=t1 ) are performed as an implant cycle, wherein the implant cycle is repeated one (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45; implanting B, P, As @ time t=tn ) or more times to implant a target implant dose level into the semiconductor substrate (fig. 1 also see col 1, lines 18-21).
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 3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cathey Jr, U.S. Patent No. 5,354,698.
Cathey Jr. disclosed above; and in particular a part of the implant process is considered as an amorphizing implant that generates an amorphous layer in the semiconductor substrate (e.g., col. 5, lines 36-45implanting B, P, As @ time t=t1). Although the exact recitation “further comprising: annealing the semiconductor substrate at a temperature of 650 0C or less, wherein a solid phase epitaxial regrowth of the amorphous layer takes place” of the instant claim 3 is not explicitly stated by Cathey Jr in the related text, it appear that an annealing step is necessary (e.g., col. 1, line 35-41). Therefore, the instant claim appears to be Prima Facie obvious over Cathey Jr.
Re claim 7, Cathey Jr. further show that the hydrogen treatment comprises: generating a hydrogen species 38 in a plasma chamber 14 (e.g., fig. 1); and directing the hydrogen species to the substrate surface when the semiconductor substrate is at a low temperature treatment (e.g., col. 4, lines 4-5), and inherently shows that the substrate surface is terminated with a hydrogen passivation after the plasma clean since the same process were used (e.g., hydrogen plasma etc.).
The temperature range of claims 3, 7 and the energy range of claim 8 are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where 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 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any temperature range and energy range suitable to the method in process of Cathey Jr in order to optimize the process.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights