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Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/01/26.Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 05/01/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-6, 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas Petersen Barbosa Lima et al (U. S. Patent Application:
2021/0066079, here after Lima).
Claim 1 is rejected. Lima teaches a method of forming a p-type doped silicon
germanium layer [abstract lines 1-2], the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber of a reactor [0041]; and
forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer, the step of forming comprising
[0043]:
providing a silicon precursor to the reaction chamber [0045];
providing a germanium precursor to the reaction chamber [0045]; and
providing a boron precursor(B2H6) [0047], a gallium precursor [0046] and an
indium precursor (InBH3)3) to the reaction chamber [0047]. Although Lima
does not clearly teach a volumetric flow ratio of the indium precursor to the boron precursor is between about 0.1 and about 0.3. However, teaches the volumetric flow (or Sccm) of boron precursor is 50 or 500[0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium where the flow rate of boron precursor is 500 sccm and flow rate of indium precursor is 50 sccm, because Lima teaches a range of suitable flow rate for doping precursors in absence of criticality. (volumetric flow rate can be calculated by dividing the Mass flow rate by the mass density of the fluid).
Claim 2 is rejected as Lima teaches the p-type doped silicon germanium layer is
epitaxially formed on the substrate [0004, 0043].
Claim 3 is rejected. Lima teaches a temperature during the step of forming the p-
type doped silicon germanium layer is 450° [0041].
Claim 4 is rejected. Lima teaches the boron precursor comprise one or more of a
borane having a formula B₂H₆, deuterium-diborane (B₂D₆), or one or more borohydride compounds [0047].
Claims 5-6 are rejected. Lima teaches the one or more borohydride compounds
are selected from the group consisting of gallium borohydride (Ga (BH₄) 3) and indium
borohydride (In (BH₄) 3) when (x=0) [0047].
Claim 8 is rejected. Lima teaches the one or more p-type dopant precursors
comprise indium halide compound [0047].
Claim 24 is rejected. Lima teaches the limitation of claim 1, and teaches forming
a source region and a drain region of a device [0071].
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas
Petersen Barbosa Lima et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0066079, here after Lima),
further in view of Joe Margetis (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0027583, here after
Margetis).
Claims 9-10 are rejected. Lima does not teach the indium precursors comprise
indium alkyl compounds. Margetis teaches a process of depositing p-type silicon germanium where the indium dopant compound is trimethylindium [0037, 0040, 0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium where the indium dopant is trimethylindium, Di-isopropylmethylindium because it is suitable precursor for making p-type doping for silicon germanium.
Claim 11 is rejected. Lima teaches the amount of dopant is 1020 atom/am3, but
does not teach a concentration of indium in the p-type doped silicon germanium layer is
greater than 0 at% and not more than 2 at%. Margetis teaches a process of depositing
p-type silicon germanium where the indium dopant concentration is (greater) than
1020/cm3 [0037, 0040, 0022], considering Si50Ge50, and molar weight of silicon and
germanium and density of silicon and germanium, the amount of dopant is 0.2 atom %.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium were the
concentration of indium dopant is 0.217% (or higher) because it is suitable amount of p-
type dopant in silicon germanium for making devices.
Claims 7, 12-13, 15, 17, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas Petersen Barbosa Lima et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0066079, here after Lima), further in view of John Tolle et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0083375, here after Tolle).
Claim 7 is rejected. Lima does not teach borohydride compounds comprise a
borohydride represented by the formula RxM (BH₄) 3-X, wherein R is independently
chosen from CH₃, C₂H₅, C₆H₅, CF₃SO₃, and NH₂; M is a Group 13 metal independently
chosen. Tolle teaches a process of depositing p-type silicon germanium [0032, 0033],
where the p-type dopant precursor borohydride compounds comprise, a borohydride
represented by the formula RxM (BH₄) 3-X, wherein R is independently chosen from CH₃, C₂H₅, C₆H₅, CF₃SO₃, and NH₂; M is a Group IIIA metal independently chosen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium as Lima
teaches where the borohydride precursor is based on Tolle teaches, because it is
suitable boron precursor for making p-type boron doped silicon germanium.
Claim 12 is rejected. Lima teaches a method of forming a p-type doped silicon
germanium layer [abstract lines 1-2], the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber of a reactor [0041]; and
forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer comprising boron and gallium
[0045], the step of forming comprising:
providing a silicon precursor to the reaction chamber [0047];
providing a germanium precursor to the reaction chamber [0049]; and
providing a boron precursor(B2H6) [0047], a gallium precursor [0046] and an
indium precursor (InBH3)3) to the reaction chamber [0047]. Although Lima
does not clearly teach a volumetric flow ratio of the indium precursor to the boron precursor is between about 0.1 and about 0.3. However, teaches the volumetric flow (or Sccm) of boron precursor is 50 or 500[0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium where the flow rate of boron precursor is 500 sccm and flow rate of indium precursor is 50 sccm, because Lima teaches a range of suitable flow rate for doping precursors in absence of criticality. Lima teaches gallium precursor is gallium bromine or gallium iodine precursor [0047], but does not it is gallium tribromide or gallium triiodide. Tolle teaches a process of depositing p-type silicon germanium [0032, 0033], where the p- type dopant precursor is gallium bromine or gallium iodine precursor (Z is iodine or bromine, M is gallium, Y or bromine or iodin, and x=0 or x=3) [0028 lines 12-end]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming p-type silicon germanium where the indium dopant is gallium bromine or gallium iodine precursor, because it is suitable precursor for making p-type gallium doped silicon germanium.
Claim 13 is rejected as Lima teaches the silicon precursor comprises silane
[0047].
Claim 15 is rejected as Lima teaches the boron precursor comprises one or more
of a borane, deuterium-diborane (B₂D₆), or one or more borohydrides [0047].
Claim 17 is rejected as Lima teaches a temperature of the substrate is
400C [0041].
Claim 22 is rejected as Lima teaches the p-type doped silicon germanium layer is
selectively formed overlying a first surface of the substrate, relative to a second surface
of the substrate [0027].
Claim 23 is rejected as Lima teaches there is not an etchant (no etchant in
forming gas, 104) used during the step of forming the p-type doped silicon germanium
layer [fig. 1].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas Petersen Barbosa Lima et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0066079, here after Lima), John Tolle et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0083375, here after Tolle), further in view of Yun-Jun Li et al (Chinese Patent: 110943121, here after Li).
Claim 16 is rejected. Lima teaches the one or more p-type dopant precursors
further comprises an indium precursor [0047], but does not teach it is alkyl amino indium precursor. Li teaches DADI (dimethylamino)propyldimethyl indium) is suitable indium precursor for formation of epitaxial films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Lima and Tolle, where the indium precursor is dimethylamino)propyldimethyl indium, because it is suitable indium precursor for making indium containing films via epitaxy.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Lucas Petersen Barbosa Lima et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0066079, here after
Lima), further in view of Kaushal Singh et al (U. S. Patent: 2005/0277272, here after
Singh).
Claims 18-19 are rejected. A method of forming a p-type doped silicon
germanium layer, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber of a reactor [0041]; and
forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer [0045], the step of forming
comprising:
providing a silicon precursor to the reaction chamber;
providing a germanium precursor to the reaction chamber [0047]; and
providing one or more p-type dopant precursors to the reaction chamber [0047].
Lima teaches the silicon precursor is silane [0047]. Lima does not teach the silicon
precursor comprises bromine. Singh teaches a method of making silicon germanium film and teaches the silicon precursor is higher order silane or dibromosilane [0059]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of forming doped silicon germanium as Lima teaches where the silicon precursor is dibromosilane, because it is suitable precursor for making silicon germanium film.
Claim 20 is rejected as Lima teaches the p-type doped silicon germanium layer
comprises boron and gallium (using gallium borohydride precursor) [0047].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/01/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 3, 17, 21 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Lima does not teach providing a boron precursor, a gallium precursor and an indium precursor to eth reaction chamber. The examiner disagrees, Lima teaches using gallium precursor, boron precursor and boron precursor including indium precursor (indium precursor) [0047]. Furthermore, Lima teaches precursors flow rate of less than 50-500 sccm (volumetric flow rate can be calculated by dividing the Mass flow rate by the mass density of the fluid). Same argument is valid for claim 12 arguments.
The applicant argument regrading claim 18 is not persuasive, Singh et al teach silicon precursor comprising bromide (see claim rejection 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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights