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 Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 09/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 15, 16 recites the limitations SiXNy, GayNz, SiwNz, and GayNz. These limitations render the claims indefinite because x, y, w, and z are not defined.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the SixNy residue material" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitaiton “the method as recited in claim 18.” This limitaiton renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to what “the method” claim 8 makes reference.
Clam 12 is considered to be indefinite because there are two different claims having the same numbering.
Claim 14 recites the limitation (266 Pa). This limitaiton renders the claim indefinite because it unclear whether the feature recited in the parenthesis is a required part of the claim or an optional step/feature.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kryliouk (US 2010/0273290).
Regarding claim 1, Kryliouk discloses a method of fabricating an integrated circuit, the method comprising: cleaning an interior wall surface of a reactor chamber configured to form a Group III nitride epitaxial layer over a semiconductor substrate ([0040]), and cleaning one or more components disposed in the reactor chamber, in a first cleaning process using a plasma containing fluorine-based reactive species (Fig.4, numeral 504; [0059]); after the first cleaning process, cleaning the interior wall surface of the reactor chamber and the one or more components disposed therein in a second cleaning process using chlorine gas (Fig.5, numeral 508; [0065])); and after the second cleaning process, forming the Group III nitride epitaxial layer over the semiconductor substrate in the reactor chamber (Fig.4, numeral 446; [0030];[0045]).
Regarding claim 4, Kryliouk discloses wherein the plasma containing fluorine-based reactive species is formed from one or more of SF6, F2 and NF3, ([0040]), the plasma supplied from a remote plasma generator ([0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Kryliouk discloses wherein the Group Ill nitride epitaxial layer is formed as a top layer of a Group III-V stack of epitaxial layers (Fig. 1A; [0005])
Regarding claim 9, Kryliouk discloses a method of forming a Group Ill nitride layer, comprising: in a first cleaning process exposing an interior wall surface of a reactor chamber to a first plasma containing a fluorine-containing reactive species (Fig.5, numerals 502, 504); [0059]); in a second cleaning process after the first cleaning process, exposing the interior wall surface of the reactor chamber to a chlorine-containing species (Fig. 5, numeral 510; claim 4) after the second cleaning process, forming the Group Ill nitride epitaxial layer over a semiconductor substrate in the reactor chamber (Fig.4, numeral 446).
Regarding claim 10, Kryliouk discloses wherein an in-situ chlorine gas supply provides the chlorine-containing species ([0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Kryliouk discloses wherein the chlorine-containing species is provided as a second plasma ([0037]).
Regarding claim 12, Kryliouk discloses wherein the fluorine-containing reactive species is provided by one or more of SF6, F2 and NF3 ([0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Kryliouk discloses wherein the first plasma is a remotely generated plasma ([0040]).
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) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryliouk.
Regarding claim 13, Kryliouk does not disclose wherein the chamber is at a temperature of about 350 0C during the first and second cleaning processes.
Kryliouk however discloses that the temperature of the first and second cleaning process can be adjusted to optimize the cleaning process ([0066]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify temperature of the first and second processes to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the cleaning process.
Regarding claim 14, Kryliouk does not disclose wherein during the first cleaning process a chamber pressure is about 2 torr (266 Pa) and a flow rate of NF3 is about 1500 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm).
Kryliouk however discloses that the chamber pressure and a flow rate of the first and second cleaning process can be adjusted to optimize the cleaning process ([0066]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to the chamber pressure and a flow rate of the first and second cleaning process to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the cleaning process.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryliouk as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yeh (US 2019/0136373).
Regarding claim 2, Kryliouk discloses and the second cleaning process removes Group III nitride residue material ([0040]).
Kryliouk does not disclose wherein the first cleaning process removes silicon nitride (SixNy) residue material.
Yeh however discloses wherein the first cleaning process removes silicon nitride (SixNy) residue material ([0056]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Kryliouk with Yeh to remove silicon nitride (SixNy) residue material for the purpose of cleaning reactor chamber (Yeh, [0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Kryliouk in view of Yeh discloses wherein the SixNy residue material and the Group III nitride residue material comprise byproducts resulting from processing of semiconductor process wafers in the reactor chamber for forming Group III-V devices (Kryliouk, [0040], Yeh [0056]).
Regarding claim 16, Kryliouk discloses the second cleaning process removes GayNz from the interior wall [0040]).
Kryliouk does not disclose the first cleaning process removes SiWNx from the interior wall surface.
Yeh however discloses wherein the first cleaning process removes silicon nitride (SixNy) residue material ([0056]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Kryliouk with Yeh to remove silicon nitride (SixNy) residue material for the purpose of cleaning reactor chamber (Yeh, [0056]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryliouk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furuta (US 2012/0040536).
Regarding claim 5, Kryliouk does not disclose wherein the first cleaning process is performed periodically for cleaning the SixNy residue material at regular intervals.
Furuta however discloses wherein the first cleaning process is performed periodically for cleaning the SixNy residue material at regular intervals (Fig.2).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kryliouk with Furuta to perform the first cleaning process periodically for cleaning the SixNy residue material at regular intervals for the purpose of batch processing (Furuta, [0047]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryliouk as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Decoutere (US 2013/0153923).
Regarding claim 6, Kryliouk does not disclose wherein further comprising forming an in-situ SiN surface passivation layer over the Group III nitride epitaxial layer in the reactor chamber.
Decoutere however discloses forming an in-situ SiN surface passivation layer over the Group III nitride epitaxial layer in the reactor chamber ([0042]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kryliouk with Decoutere to form in-situ SiN surface passivation layer over the Group III nitride epitaxial layer in the reactor chamber for the purpose of improving device performance (Decoutere, [0011]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kryliouk in view of Decoutere as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Furta.
Regarding claim 7, Kryliouk does not disclose wherein the first cleaning process is performed after every in-situ SiN surface passivation layer run in the reactor chamber.
Furuta however discloses the first cleaning process is performed after every in-situ SiN surface passivation layer run in the reactor chamber (Fig. 2).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kryliouk with Furuta to perform the first cleaning process after every in-situ SiN surface passivation layer run in the reactor chamber for the purpose of batch processing (Furuta, [0047]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the first cleaning process removes SiwNx from one or more silicon carbide (SiC) segments of components disposed in the reactor chamber and the second cleaning process removes GayNz from the one or more SiC segments of the components disposed in the reactor chamber as required by claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891