DETAILED ACTION
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) and Dube (2018/0230624).
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.
In further regard to the steps of flowing the halide precursor, the silicon precursor and the dopant precursor – the combined prior art generally teaches intermixing the reactants, though Tomassini further teaches that intermixing or separate flow of the gases is operable [0059]. Dube ‘624 further teaches that in the formation of an epitaxial layer, it is useful to apply a deposition-etch cyclical to form the layer [0080], wherein such precursors include a silicon precursor and an etchant such as HCl. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the cyclical process of Dube in combination with the teachings of Zollner and Tomassini as Tomassini teaches the use of the halide as an etchant and Dube teaches that one can alternate the application of the etchant and deposition materials. The further separation of the dopant applicant step follows by the general teaching of the fact that the steps are either combined or separated. The application of precursors simultaneously or separately is widely known in the art and “In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes” Ex parte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp1959). See also MPEP 2144.04 VI., also further: See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). The instant specification does not support any particular benefit of separating the steps.
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 450-550 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 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].
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, 9 and 10, 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 ‘449 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. Wherein the teachings are silent on the temperature, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. There is no criticality in the selection of the claimed temperature, therefore such a temperature range would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Dube teaches a mixture of NH3 and NF3 [0029].
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) and Li (2018/0190489).
The teachings of Zollner, Tomasini and Dube are applied above, the combination won’t be repeated but do not specifically teach the claimed temperature range, therefore the teachings of Li are further applied. Li teaches that a preclean process includes exposure of a substrate to NF3/NH3 further includes a pre-bake that comprises the preclean step 110 [0018]. The overall teachings include the process at 600-800 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to apply the claimed temperature as, initially, the selection of temperature is obvious as noted, but, further, Li teaches that a temperature within the range of 600-800 C for a preclean process. In regard to the fact that Li does not explicitly teach that the native oxide removal portion of the preclean process includes the same temperature, in generally changing the temperature is understood to take additional time and furthermore if the substrate can handle exposure to the temperature for the prebake, then it follows that the substrate would tolerate the same temperature range for the native oxide removal process.
The other claims are rejected on the same basis as above and not repeated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/29/2026 are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in further view of Dube ‘624, as presented above. The teachings as originally presented do not include the sequential steps as claimed, but such steps, well known in the art of deposition (wherein ALD and/or CVD is alternatively applied to the same processes), are further taught by Dube ‘624.
The further element of claim 2 is also taught by the combination wherein the order of adding ingredients/reactants is obvious. But further Dube also teaches HCl.
In regard to the temperature of the cleaning process – temperature is obvious without a showing of criticality. In any case, Li is also further applied and teaches a plasma preclean that occurs at least partially within the temperature range.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights