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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-22 are pending. Claims 4 and 6 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-11, 13 and 15-18 are amended. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. Claims 5 and 16-18 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 7-15 and 19-22 are currently examined on the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: [0050] and [0059] recite “silicon 100… silicon 111,” which appears to be read as " silicon (100) … silicon (111)". Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 11-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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 inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The reciting "... a single radical species comprising … " in claim 11 is not described in the specification as originally filed. Claims 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 11.
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 1-3, 7-15, 19 and 20-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 1 “…a remote plasma unit… by a remote plasma unit …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “remote plasma unit” refers to the previously recited “remote plasma unit” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 2, 3, 7-10, 21 and 22 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
The recited in claim 11 “…a remote plasma unit… by a remote plasma unit …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear whether the “remote plasma unit” refers to the previously recited “remote plasma unit” or not. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 11 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required. Claims 12-15, 19 and 20 are rejected because they depend on claim 11.
The recited in claim 13 “…the random surface terminations comprise at least one of silicon (100) or silicon (111) …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is noted that parent claim 11 recites “lower-energy surface terminations.” It is further noted that instant PGPUB US 2023/0265582 A1 (for example, [0050], [0059]) discloses “higher energy silicon 100 … lower energy silicon 111.” It is not clear which surface is the lower energy surface, and how the higher energy silicon 100 can be the lower-energy surface. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 13 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
The recited in claim 22 “…the random surface terminations comprise at least one of silicon (100) or silicon (111) …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is noted that parent claim 1 recites “lower-energy surface terminations.” It is further noted that instant PGPUB US 2023/0265582 A1 (for example, [0050], [0059]) discloses “higher energy silicon 100 … lower energy silicon 111.” It is not clear which surface is the lower energy surface, and how the higher energy silicon 100 can be the lower-energy surface. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 22 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
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 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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabari et al (US 20120210932 A1), and further in view of Yan et al (US 20180076031 A1, “Yan”).
Regarding claim 1, Tabari teaches a method comprising using/flowing a radical species in a reactor (reaction chamber) comprising an epitaxially grown silicon film (0020); using exposing (contacting) a surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with a plasma (radical species), wherein the surface comprises epitaxial silicon and/or non-epitaxial silicon (random surface terminations randomly distributed across the surface) (0042-0044), selectively etching (reacting) at least a portion of the random surface terminations (epitaxial silicon and/or non-epitaxial silicon) on the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film in response to the contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with the radical species (0044, 0045).
Tabari does not explicitly teach flowing a radical species precursor to a remote plasma unit; flowing an inert gas to the remote plasma unit, such that the inert gas mixes with the radical species precursor to form a gas mixture; igniting, by a remote plasma unit, the gas mixture to form a radical species. However, Yan teaches a method, wherein a radical species precursor to a remote plasma unit/chamber, flowing an inert gas to the remote plasma unit/chamber, such that the inert gas mixes with the radical species precursor to form a gas mixture; forming/generating/igniting, by a remote plasma unit/chamber, the gas mixture to form a radical species, a plasma/radical can be ignited/generated/formed remotely (abstract, 0007-0009, 0022, 0024-0032, 0039, 0043-0046, 0048, 0052, 0053, 0055-0062, 0067, 0068, 0070).Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Tabari per teachings of Yan in order to provide an improved substrate for fabrication of integrated circuits (Yan 0002, 0006-0009, 0035, 0070). Tabari/Yan teaches similar process as instantly claimed processing the surface of the epitaxial grown silicon film as addressed above. Therefore, “forming a substantially uniform distribution of lower-energy surface terminations bound to the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film in response to the reacting at least a portion of the random surface terminations with the radical species, wherein the substantially uniform distribution of lower-energy surface terminations comprises a distribution that varies by less than or equal to 10% across the surface of the epitaxially grown film, wherein the lower-energy surface terminations are products of the reaction between the radical species and the random surface terminations” is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, because the similar process is expected to produce the similar results/effects. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages, e.g., the advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the combination of references. See MPEP 2144 II. A rationale to support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson' s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP 2143.02. Also, regarding the remote plasma unit limitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 2, Tabari/Yan teaches that the plasma (radical species) selectively (preferentially) etches the non-epitaxial silicon (reacts preferentially with the random surface terminations) as compared to epitaxial silicon of the epitaxially grown silicon film (Tabari 0044). It is well-established that the same or similar process is expected to produce similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3, Tabari/Yan teaches that the plasma (radical species) comprises a hydrogen plasma/radical for processing the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film (Tabari 0044 and claim 17), same process as instant claim. Even if it is not clearly envisaged that the substantially uniform distribution of surface terminations comprises Si-H moieties, it still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that “the substantially uniform distribution of lower-energy surface terminations comprising Si-H moieties” is within the teaching of Tabari/Yan, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 7, Tabari/Yan teaches that the non-epitaxial silicon surface (random surface terminations) is formed while forming the epitaxial silicon film by using a gas including at least one of H2, HCl and Cl2, a source gas includes one of SiH4, dichlorosilane or SiCl4, and a phosphorus dopant (Tabari 0019, 0042-0044). Therefore, it still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the random surface terminations (non-epitaxial silicon) comprise combinations of two or more of silicon moieties, hydrogen moieties, chlorine moieties and phosphorous moieties, because silicon, hydrogen, chlorine and phosphorous being used in the process for forming the non-epitaxial silicon (random surface terminations). If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 8, Tabari/Yan teaches that the radical species is hydrogen (Tabari 0044), same radical as disclosed in for example [0063] of instant PGPUB US 20230265582 A1, and the surface is the surface of the epitaxial grown silicon film (Tabari 0044). Therefore, it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that “covalent bonds” between the first radical species and the surface is formed in the process of Tabari/Yan, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 21, Tabari/Yan teaches the contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with the radical species as addressed above, it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that “the epitaxially grown silicon film remains unetched in response to the contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with the radical species” in the process of Tabari/Yan, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 22, Tabari/Yan teaches that the random surface terminations comprise crystalline silicon (e.g., Si <100> or Si <111>) (Yan 0017), reading on at least one of silicon 100 or silicon 111. Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabari/Yan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dube et al (US 20180230624 A1, “Dube”).
Regarding claim 9, Tabari/Yan teaches the radical species (a second radical species) and forming the epitaxially grown silicon film on a surface of a wafer/substrate as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach using a first radical species to clean a wafer before forming the epitaxially grown silicon film on the wafer. However, Dube teaches a method for forming an epitaxial layer/film, wherein a surface of a substrate is cleaned using a plasma/radical (first radical species) before forming the epitaxially grown silicon film on the substrate/wafer (0016, 0017 and claims 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Tabari/Yan per teachings of Dube in order to provide the deposited epitaxial firm with improved quality (Dube 0078-0080).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabari/Yan/Dube as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Olsen et al (US 20180138038 A1, “Olsen”).
Regarding claim 10, Tabari/Yan/Dube teaches use of the plasma (first radical species) to clean the wafer and use of the plasma (second radical species) contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film as addressed above, but does not explicitly teach that the wafer is located within a chamber during use of the first radical species to clean the wafer, and within the chamber during the contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with the second radical species. However, Olsen teaches a method for epitaxial deposition, wherein a first plasma/radical etch/clean process of a surface of a substrate and a second plasma/radical etch/clean process of the surface of the substrate is performed with a same chamber (0031, 0061, 0069, claims 1 and 9) Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Tabari/Yan/Dube per teachings of Olsen in order to decrease the chance of contamination and improves the quality of the deposited epitaxial film (Olsen 0061, 0069). Regarding the chamber limitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Claims 11-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al (US 20180076031 A1, “Yan”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US 20180076031 A1, “Yan”).
Regarding claim 11, Yan teaches a film deposition method comprising within a chamber for example chamber 408/416 (first chamber) using a plasma (first radical species) to remove an oxide from a surface of a substrate/wafer (0066-0069); transferring the substrate/wafer to a chamber for example chamber 410/412/414 (second chamber) (0069); within the second chamber, epitaxially growing a layer comprising silicon (silicon film) on the surface of the wafer from which the oxide was removed, thus forming an epitaxially grown silicon film, wherein a surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film comprises absorbed/trapped species surface of a crystalline silicon (random surface terminations randomly distributed across the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film;) (0017, 0035, 0068-0069 and claim 1); transferring the wafer, having the epitaxially grown silicon film thereon, back to the chamber 408/416 (first chamber) (0069); flowing a second radical species precursor to a remote plasma unit/chamber; flowing an inert gas to the remote plasma unit/chamber, such that the inert gas mixes with the second radical species precursor to form a gas mixture; forming/generating/igniting, by a remote plasma unit, the gas mixture to form a second radical species; flowing the second radical species to the first chamber comprising the wafer with the epitaxially grown silicon film, a plasma/radical can be ignited/generated/ formed remotely (abstract, 0007-0009, 0022, 0024-0032, 0039, 0043-0046, 0048, 0052, 0053, 0055-0062, 0067, 0068, 0070), and within the chamber 408/416 (first chamber), contacting the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film with a single radical species (for example hydrogen plasma/radical species) comprising second plasma (second radical species), thus removing (reacting) absorbed or trapped species (at least a portion of the random surface terminations) on the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film (0038, 0049, 0058, 0069, 0070, claims 1, 13 and 16), substantially the same process as instant claimed. Even if it is not clearly envisaged the process of Yan “forming a substantially uniform distribution of lower-energy surface terminations bound to the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film, wherein the substantially uniform distribution of lower-energy surface terminations comprises a distribution that varies by less than or equal to 10% across the surface of the epitaxially grown film, wherein the lower-energy surface terminations are products of the reaction between the second radical species and the random surface terminations”, this limitation still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Furthermore, it is noted that the claimed invention calls for process claims, wherein the steps of the process are met by the applied prior art. It is well established that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA). Also, regarding the remote plasma unit limitation, it is an apparatus limitation in a process claim. Unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 12, Yan teaches the transferring the wafer to the second chamber and the transferring the wafer back to the first chamber are performed using robot/robotics (0066, 0069). Furthermore, it is noted that the claimed invention calls for process claims, wherein the steps of the process are met by the applied prior art. It is well established that unless the apparatus limitations affect the process in a manipulative sense, they may have little weight in the process claims. In re Leeson Corp. 185 USPQ 156; In re Tarczy-Hornoch 158 USPQ 141, 150; In re Edwards 128 USPQ 387; Stalego v. Heymes 120 USPQ 473, 478 (CCPA); Ex parte Hart 117 USPQ 193; In re Freeman 44 USPQ 116 (CCPA); In re Sweeney 72 USPQ 501 (CCPA).
Regarding claim 13, Yan teaches that the random surface terminations comprise crystalline silicon (e.g., Si <100> or Si <111>) (0017), reading on at least one of silicon 100 or silicon 111. Further, it is well-established that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Also see MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Yan teaches the second radical species reacts preferentially with the absorbed or trapped species (random surface terminations) without damaging or etching the substrate with the epitaxially deposited layer comprising silicon (as compared to epitaxial silicon of the epitaxially grown silicon film) (0035. 0038, 0049, 0058). It is well-established that the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Yan teaches that the second radical species comprises a plasma of hydrogen-containing precursor (hydrogen radical) (fig 2, 0040, 0041, 0058, claims 1 and 7), Therefore, it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that “the substantially uniform distribution of surface terminations comprising Si-H moieties” is within the teaching of Yan, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 19, Yan teaches that the growth process of epitaxial layer is performed with dichlorosilane, phosphorous-containing gas, arsenic-containing gas, hydrogen chloride or combination thereof (0035-0037). Therefore, it still would have been reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that the random surface terminations comprise combinations of two or more of silicon moieties, hydrogen moieties, chlorine moieties phosphorous moieties and arsenic moieties, because silicon, hydrogen, chlorine, phosphorous and arsenic being used in the process for forming the random surface terminations of the epitaxial silicon layer. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding claim 20, Yan teaches that the second plasma/radical species comprises hydrogen, and the surface is the surface of the epitaxial grown silicon film (Yan 0041, 0058, claims 1, 7, 16 and 19). Therefore, it is reasonably expected to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date that “covalent bonds” between the first radical species and the surface of the epitaxially grown silicon film is formed in the process of Yan, because the same or similar process is expected to produce the same or similar results/effects. It is also axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. It is well established that If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2112.01 II.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the arguments do not apply to the new ground rejection provided above.
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 Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights