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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-2, 5-9, 13 and 21-26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 1, the phrase “providing an etchant to the substrate after forming the first layer, wherein the etchant comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), chloride (Cl2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrobromic acid (HBr), boron chloride (BCl3), or fluorine (F2)” was not described in the original specification and/or the elected species.
Re claim 21, the phrase “wherein the substrate comprises a gap having a width between 0.01 micrometers and 1 micrometer, and wherein the first layer provided with silicon is formed in the gap” was not described in the original specification (e.g., substrate 3 in fig. 1).
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Re claim 23, the phrase “a device comprises a plurality of gaps on the substrate, wherein the plurality of gaps comprises a surface comprising a silicon oxynitride, and wherein the first layer provided with silicon is formed on the surface” is unclear and indefinite. It does not appear to further limit the parent claim 1. Further, the instant phrase does not positively recite the active processing step.
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 1-2, 5-9, 13 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., US Pub. No. 2020/0035811 A1.
Re claim 1, Huang et al. disclose a method for forming a layer provided with silicon on a substrate, comprising: positioning a substrate 102 (e.g., fig. 7B) or 202 (e.g., fig. 18B) within a processing chamber 300 (figs. 7B and 12); heating the substrate to a first temperature at about 380°C (paragraph 41) or about 350-600 C (paragraph 59); introducing a trisilane precursor (paragraph 41 or 59) into the processing chamber 300 to deposit a first layer provided with silicon 124/128 (figs. 7B and 12) or 224 (e.g., fig. 18B) at the first temperature; providing an etchant to the substrate after forming the first layer, wherein the etchant comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), chloride (Cl2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrobromic acid (HBr), boron chloride (BCl3) (e.g., paragraph 60, in this case, the dopant gases is considered as the etchant gas since it is the same gas; furthermore, it should be noted that no etching is required in the instant claim), or fluorine (F2) and, heating the substrate to a third temperature between about 600 0C and 1200 °C (i.e., greater than 600 or about 700 to about 1100 °C paragraph 42) anneal the first layer provided with silicon 124/128, inherently shows that the first layer provided with silicon comprises epitaxial grains after heating the substrate to the third temperature since the same processing steps were carried out, see figs. 1-22C and pages 1-9. Although the exact recitations “first temperature between 300 0C and 370 °C” of the instant claim is not explicitly stated by Huang et al., in the related text, Huang et al. disclosed above and in particular paragraph 41 show the first temperature is about 380 °C and/or 350-600 C (paragraph 59); therefore, the instant claim appear to be Prima Facie obvious over Huang et al.
Furthermore, the temperature range of instant claim is 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 thickness, size, length, 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 suitable to the method in process of Huang et al. in order to optimize the process.
In addition, heating a substrate to a first temperature between 300 0C and 370 °C and/or using the etchant comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), chloride (Cl2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrobromic acid (HBr), boron chloride (BCl3), or fluorine (F2) has been well-known in the semiconductor art. The selection of a well-known material or process and/or arrangement based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig - saw puzzle." 65 USPQ at 301.).
Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature (note: the instant specification appears to show using any temperature between 300 0C and 600 °C would work) of the claimed process/arrangement (i.e. - first temperature between 300 0C and 370 °C and/or the instant recited etchant) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein a pressure in the processing chamber is between 1 Torr and 100 Torr (i.e. about 1Torr, paragraph 41) during introducing the trisilane precursor
Re claim 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first layer provided with silicon is substantially carbon free when deposited (i.e. paragraph 40).
Re claim 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the third temperature is between 610 °C and 800 0C (i.e., 700 °C paragraph 42).
Re claim 7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the third temperature is between 620 °C and 700 °C (i.e., 700 °C paragraph 42).
Re claim 13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first layer provided with silicon is amorphous 128 (paragraph 40).
Although the exact recitations “wherein the epitaxial grains have a length between 5 nm and 30 nm” and “wherein the epitaxial grains have a length between 10 nm and 20 nm” of the instant claims 8-9 are not explicitly stated by Chiang et al in the related text, it appears the instant recitations are within the scope of the cited prior art since these results are formed through the same process; therefore, claims 8-9 appear to be Prima Facie obvious over Huang et al.
Furthermore, the grain range of claims 8-9 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 thickness, size, length, 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 grain length range suitable to the method in process of Huang et al. in order to optimize the process. And the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed process/arrangement (i.e. - have a length between 5 nm and 30 nm or 10 nm and 20 nm) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 24. The method according to claim 1, wherein heating the substrate to a third temperature is performed after providing the etchant (e.g., paragraph 61 and fig. 13).
Re claim 25. The method according to claim 1, wherein the etchant comprises nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), hydrobromic acid (HBr), boron chloride (BCl3) (e.g., paragraph 60), or fluorine (F2).
Re claim 26. The method according to claim 1, wherein a temperature during providing the etchant is between 330 °C and 450 °C (e.g., 350C and paragraph 59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons herein 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 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