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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1).
Takahashi ’710 discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing a treatment precursor (124, Fig. 5; “H2O, NH3, alcohol or the like” [0065]) to a processing of a remote plasma system (120 [0050] Fig. 5) of a semiconductor processing chamber 61 [0050];
generating plasma effluents (hydrogen radicals, [0065]) of the pre-treatment precursor in the remote plasma system;
flowing plasma effluents of the treatment precursor to a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate W comprising alternating layers of material (“Si/SiGe layers alternatingly stacked on a wafer W” [0023]) is disposed within the processing region (as depicted in Fig. 5), and wherein the alternating layers of material comprise a silicon-and-germanium-containing material [0023]; and
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the treatment precursor, wherein the contacting removes a residue (“D” Fig. 2B, which may include carbon, [0024]) from a surface of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (“causing the hydrogen radicals in the generated plasma to act on the residuals D remaining on the arrangement surface Wn of the wafer W after the BT processing” [0065]).
Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose a temperature within the processing chamber. Takahashi ’710 discloses to control a temperature of the wafer on the upper table 103 [0052], but is silent as to its temperature.
Yang ’280 teaches to control a wafer temperature within the range of 20 °C and 400 °C [0063]. More specifically, Yang ’280 teaches
providing a substrate 54 with Si and SiGe thin films 53 and a carbon-containing layer 52 [0022], Fig. 1;
generating hydrogen radicals (the organic radical based surface treatment process, [0026]) by inducing a plasma [0026] in a remote plasma chamber and filtering ions by a separation grid and allowing passage of neutrals through holes in the separation grid for exposure to the workpiece [0027], [0031].
The organic radical based surface treatment process can be a hydrogen radical treatment, for example with a process gas of hydrogen (H2) and nitrogen (N2), to remove photoresist or as a dry strip process [0109]. Yang ’280 fails to explicitly disclose using the hydrogen radical treatment for removing residue, however Yang ’280 teaches a broad temperature range at which hydrogen radical treatment is effective. Thus, Yang ’280 is a general teaching that hydrogen radical treatment may be conducted at a temperature range of 20 °C to 400 °C, which encompasses the cited temperature range.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature range in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’280 teaches that it is a useful temperature range for hydrogen radical treatment and such is expected to give the predictable result of removed residue. Still further, the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
As to amended claim 1, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose that the pressure within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr [0066]. Yang ’519 is used as a general teaching of useful pressures in processing regions while using hydrogen radicals produced in a remote chamber. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
As to claim 2, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the treatment precursor comprises a hydrogen-containing precursor, nitrogen-containing precursor, or an oxygen-containing precursor (H2O, NH3 [0065]).
As to claim 3, Takahashi ’710 discloses a plasma power is maintained at 300 W to 1000 W [0067], which is less than or about 5,000 W as cited.
As to claims 4-5, Takahashi ’710 discloses providing an inert precursor, helium, with the pre-treatment precursor (helium may be included with the reducing gas [0056]).
As to claim 6, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the alternating layers of material comprise a silicon-containing material (Si/SiGe, see rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 7, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the residue comprises a carbon-containing material [0065].
As to claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1. Yang teaches that hydrogen radical treatment may be conducted at a temperature range of 20 °C to 400 °C, which encompasses the cited temperature range.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature range in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang teaches that it is a useful temperature range for hydrogen radical treatment and such is expected to give the predictable result of removed residue. Still further, the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
As to claim 9, Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr, or also less than about 1 Torr [0066]. A pressure of less than 1 Torr teaches that pressures of 3 Torr or less are contemplated by Yang ’519. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
As to claim 10, Takahashi ’710 discloses the cited order of steps, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose the average surface roughness or improvement of average surface roughness of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited surface roughness in the method of Takahashi ’710 because the same steps are conducted and therefore the same results are expected.
As to claim 12, Takahashi ’710 discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising:
providing a treatment precursor (124, Fig. 5; “H2O, NH3, alcohol or the like” [0065]) to a processing of a remote plasma system (120 [0050] Fig. 5) of a semiconductor processing chamber 61 [0050];
generating plasma effluents (hydrogen radicals, [0065]) of the pre-treatment precursor in the remote plasma system;
flowing plasma effluents of the treatment precursor to a processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate W comprising alternating layers of material (“Si/SiGe layers alternatingly stacked on a wafer W” [0023]) is disposed within the processing region (as depicted in Fig. 5), and wherein the silicon-and-germanium-containing material [0023] is characterized by a first average surface roughness (Ra) (inherently); and
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the treatment precursor, wherein the contacting removes a residue (“D” Fig. 2B) from a surface of the silicon-and-germanium-containing material (“causing the hydrogen radicals in the generated plasma to act on the residuals D remaining on the arrangement surface Wn of the wafer W after the BT processing” [0065]); and
etching the silicon-and-germanium-containing material [0070].
As to the cited temperature range, the discussion of Yang ’280 from above is repeated here. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature range in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ‘280 teaches that it is a useful temperature range for hydrogen radical treatment and such is expected to give the predictable result of removed residue. Still further, the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose the surface roughness value. However, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the etching is more uniform as a result of removing the residue D [0074]-[0075]. Thus, it is expected that the uniformity is improved, however Takahashi ’710 is silent as to what degree the uniformity is improved, such as the cited 10%.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited uniformity in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because the same steps are conducted as in the instant invention, and therefore the same results are expected.
As to amended claim 12, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose that the pressure within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr [0066]. Yang ’519 is used as a general teaching of useful pressures in processing regions while using hydrogen radicals produced in a remote chamber. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
As to claim 13, Takahashi ’710 discloses a plasma power is maintained at 300 W to 1000 W [0067], which endpoint overlaps with the cited endpoint of “about 1,000 W.” Prior art which teaches a range overlapping, approaching or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, see MPEP 2131.03. Takahashi ’710 and the instant invention both use the pressure for the same purpose of a providing a remote plasma, and the lack of criticality of the pressure, together show that the full range is taught with sufficient specificity.
As to claim 14, Takahashi ’710 fails to disclose that the pressure within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber. Yang ’519 teaches that during hydrogen radical treatment with a remove plasma, that the chamber pressure is less than 5 Torr, or also less than about 1 Torr [0066]. A pressure of less than 1 Torr teaches that pressures of 3 Torr or less are contemplated by Yang ’519. Yang ’519 is used as a general teaching of useful pressures in processing regions while using hydrogen radicals produced in a remote chamber. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited pressure in the method of Takahashi ’710 because Yang ’519 teaches that such is a useful pressure range from hydrogen radical processing, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a treated surface.
As to claim 15, Takahashi ’710 discloses that the treatment precursor comprises steam or ammonia (H2O, NH3 [0065]).
As to claim 16, Takahashi ’710 discloses providing an inert precursor, helium, with the pre-treatment precursor (helium may be included with the reducing gas [0056]).
Further as to claims 18-19, see the rejection of claim 12. Takahashi ’710 discloses to move from one etching apparatus 61 to another 62, which is equivalent to halting a flow of the treatment precursor [0068], [0070].
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1), as applied to claims 12 and 18, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0079062 A1).
As to claims 17 and 20, Takahashi ’710 discloses to remove an oxide-based residual D [0063], but fails to explicitly disclose that a native oxide layer is removed. Zheng teaches that hydrogen radicals and/or energetically excited neutral species of hydrogen removes native oxides from Si or SiGe [0039]. Zheng also teaches that before processing substrates with Si and SiGe [0005], to clean the substrate 204 [0040] to remove native oxides of Si and SiGe by plasma etching [0041] or a high temperature bake process [0044]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove native oxides as cited in the modified method of Takahashi ’710 because Zheng teaches that hydrogen radicals of Takahashi ’710 removes native oxides, or still further that it is a useful to remove native oxides as part of a cleaning process prior to processing, which is expected to improve the properties of the final device.
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/115,269 in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1).
The claims of the instant invention are fully encompassed by the claims of the ’269 application. The claims do not cite the temperature and pressure ranges as in claim 1. The discussion of Yang ’280 and Yang ’519 from above is repeated here. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature and pressure ranges in the method of the reference application because Yang ’280 teaches that it is a useful temperature range for hydrogen radical treatment and such is expected to give the predictable result of removed residue and Yang ’519 teaches a useful pressure range for processing, and such is expected to give a predictable result of the cited removal.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1), and the rejection of claims 9, 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 12, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1) are consolidated and now are rejected as follows:
Claims 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1).
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US 2021/0082710 A1) in view of Yang et al (US 2019/0103280 A1) and Yang et al (US 2016/0064519 A1), as applied to claims 12 and 18, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 2016/0079062 A1).
The claims remain rejected under obvious-type double patenting over copending Application No. 18/115,269.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, to the extent they still apply.
Applicant argues that Takahashi removes residue, such as carbon-containing residue, whereas Yang ’519 removes a polysilicon layer, and there is no reason to made the asserted combination. In response, Takahashi is silent as to pressure. It is possible that Takahashi also uses the cited pressure, but there is no way to determine that from Takahashi’s disclosure. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to similar techniques of radical processing. Yang ’519 is one such technique, as its teachings are fairly similar to those of Takahashi as to provide a data point on where to set the pressure. Thus, the pressure range, which is optimizable, is also fairly disclosed by the prior art, as discussed in the rejection above.
As to the temperature range, Yang ’519 is not relied upon to teach the temperature range. Please see the rejection above for the discussion of temperature range.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the prior art applied suggests the cited method and are combinable from the viewpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art because they describe similar processing techniques.
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 ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached on 571-270-3176. 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights