DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-5, 10-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zollner (2009/0042373) in view of Tomasini (2009/0117717).
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 18, Zollner teaches an apparatus for forming a device comprising: a reaction chamber [0027],
- in regard to a first and second source to provide first and second gases to the chamber, details of the chamber are not presented, but the teachings include supplying at least two gases, therefore the two gas sources is taught,
- in regard to the susceptor, it is well understood that a susceptor must be present to treat a substrate in a vapor deposition process in a chamber, per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit disclosure of a reference – in this case wherein a wafer processing is applied it would be well understood that some type of susceptor, chuck, pedestal, i.e. substrate holder is used;
- in regard to the process (i.e. controller) steps, Zollner further teaches forming an electronic device [0004]:
- flowing a silicon precursor comprising gases such as silane, disilane or trisilane,
- flowing a Group V dopant (PCl3) forming a P doped film, i.e. SiP.
The teachings do not specifically include a cleaning step, stabilization, controller or flowing a halide precursor.
Tomasini teaches an apparatus comprising:
- a reaction chamber, see Fig. 33A and related text, with first and second gas sources (any of 130, 132, 134),
- and further teaches a controller (150) and [0009] and that a doped Si/Ge film is formed by a method (of controller steps) including a preclean step [0037], a temperature stabilization [0115], and flowing a halide precursor, see wherein HCl is provided also per claims 1 and 5, in addition to flowing a silicon precursor – see claim 2 DCS (along with a dopant precursor [0047]), wherein the halide prevents deposition onto a dielectric layer disposed on the semiconductor substate [0100], [0002-06].
It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the use of the temperature stabilization, substrate cleaning, halide gas and controller of Tomasini for the following motivations:
- the cleaning and temperature stabilization would be understood as beneficial steps in the forming of a device for obvious reasons of purity of the surface and better temperature control in allowing the temperature to stabilize,
- in regard to the application of the halide gas, Tomasini teaches that the gas is useful for controlling the deposition of material onto a dielectric layer disposed on the substrate [0100, 0002-06]; such control allows the formation of a device – as per Zollner a p-type layer is formed over the n-type layer in order to form the device [0004-05] therefore the same step would be beneficial in order to form the film on the desire portion(s) of the substrate. Further wherein it is understood that Tomasini forms an n-type layer (based on the BCl3 dopant [0008], it would be obvious to combine the teachings wherein one would operably form the n and p-type layers of Zollner by the method combined with Tomasini. The operability of using the same methods is supported by the teaching of boron (abstract) as an operable dopant in the process therefore suggesting compatibility of the method with formation of either ‘type’ of layers.
In further regard to the controller, wherein it would be held in any case that using a controller to control such a process would be implicitly taught/understood, in any case Tomasini teaches that such is useful in forming doped layers.
Regarding the repeating until a desired thickness is formed, there are no limits as to how long any of the gases are applied therefore understood that the process is continued or repeated until the desired thickness is formed [0027]. The repeating of a useful step is in any case obvious for the same purpose as applying the step – it is a methodical equivalency of the obviousness of duplication of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 B., which states that duplicating a part (taken here as process step) is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings include HCl as noted, Zollner teaches that any of HCl or HBr (etc.) are operably applied in such a process [0036].
Regarding claim 3, DCS is taught as per above.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 16, Zollner teaches a temperature preferably of 450-520C [0028], Tomassini includes a temperature of 760 degrees C [0061], while it is not stated that this temperature is specifically for the clean step, the teachings include that the routine process variables are subject to optimization [0061-62]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply 760C or any temperature such as in the range of 500-800 degrees C as Tomasini teaches that temperature is a result effective variable in the process. Further to the stabilization period, the same arguments are applied to all parts of the process.
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 17, the pressure is between 0.001 to 1000 Torr, therefore overlapping and making obvious the claimed range [0059].
Regarding claim 10, Tomasini teaches remote plasma [0063].
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the substrate comprises silicon oxide [0104].
Regarding claims 12 and 20, the teachings include PCl3 and SiP is formed, but do not explicitly include PI3 or PI5 as claimed, but the teachings generally include any phosphorous containing gas of the formula including phosphorous halogens and therefore the teachings encompass the claimed compounds [0027].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zollner and Tomasini in view of Shimamune (2006/0289856).
The teachings of Tomasini and Kim are described above, the teachings include that the epitaxial deposition results in an orientation identical to the substrate but is silent on the substrate applied. Shimamune teaches an analogous epitaxial process of forming a film with silane, germane, a boron dopant and hydrogen chloride gas [0100-101] and teaches that a suitable orientation is Si (111) [0132]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the substrate with the claimed orientation as the combined teachings of Tomasini and Shimamune include that a (111) substrate is useful and the deposited layer has the same orientation.
Claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zollner and Tomasini in view of Dube (2017/0084449).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, the teachings of Zollner and Tomasini are described above, the teachings include a cleaning step per Tomasini but not the claimed cleaning step of NF3. Dube teaches a useful preclean step for a process includes applying NF3 gas to remove any native oxides [0029]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the NF3 of Dube for the purpose of cleaning the substrate as such oxide removal steps are well known in the art. Further to claim 6, Tomasini teaches remote plasma [0063] – the use of which is not limited to any part of the process. To apply with a cleaning step would be well understood in the art wherein plasma are used often to increase excitation at temperatures lower than otherwise required.
Regarding claim 7, the pressure is between 0.001 to 1000 Torr, therefore overlapping and making obvious the claimed range [0059].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to instant claim have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is argued in a different manner than previously. Applicants argue that one would not modify Tomasini with Zollner. While the Office initially points out that the rejection is nonetheless in combination of the two references and the order of citation does not technically matter, the reasons for combination presented above overcome the issues raised by the applicants. It is noted that the teachings of Zollner include forming both n and p type layers and also are generally open to the appropriate type of each dopant, therefore supporting the operability of the combination of such teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712