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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-24, drawn to method of coating, classified in C30B29/52.
II. Claim 25, drawn to product, classified in H10P14/3444.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the method can be used for making doped silicon germanium for solar cells or thermoelectric application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Robert Clarke on 11/19/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-24. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 25 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 17. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 17, 21 are 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. The claim limitation not clear. For claim 3, and examination purposes it is considered as a temperature during the step of forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer is 350C-500C. for claims 17, and 21, and examination purposes it is considered as a temperature of substrate is less than 450 °C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 one or more p-type dopant precursors to the reaction chamber,
wherein the one or more p-type dopant precursors comprise boron, gallium and indium [0045, 0047, 0049-0051].
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 one or more p-type dopant precursors 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].
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 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 one or more p-type dopant 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, 12-17, 21-23 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 one or more p-type dopant precursors to the reaction chamber, wherein the dopant precursor is gallium compound [0051], such as 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 14 is rejected. Lima teaches p-type dopant precursors further comprises a boron precursor [0050-0051].
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 16 is rejected as Lima teaches the one or more p-type dopant precursors further comprises an indium precursor [0047].
Claims 17 and 21 are 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].
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 Khazaka Rami et al (Korean Patent: 20210053193, here after Rami).
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 one or more of bromine and iodine. Rami teaches a method of making silicon germanium film and teaches the silicon precursor is silane or diiodosilane [page 6 lines 12-15]. 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 diiodosilane, because it is suitable precursor for making silicon germanium.
Claim 20 is rejected as Rami teaches the p-type doped silicon germanium layer comprises boron and gallium [0047].
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