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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method for processing a substrate by flowing silicon-containing gases and diluent gases into a processing volume to deposit layers having a single crystalline structure
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1, 12, and 15-20 are withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “about 6.0 Torr” and “about 550 degrees Celsius” in claims 8 and 12 is interpreted in view of at least ¶[0059] of corresponding U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2024/0035195 as being within a pressure range of 5.8 to 6.2 Torr and a temperature of 545 to 555 °C.
The recitation of “about 1.0 Torr” in claims 9 and 14 is interpreted in view of at least ¶[0051] of the published application as being within a pressure range of 0.9 to 1.1 Torr.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-14 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-4, 6-14, and 21 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.
As amended, claim 1 recites that the second gas “flows into the processing volume at a second flow rate that is larger than the first flow rate.” However, the specification as originally filed does not teach or suggest the broader recitation that the second flow rate is larger than the first flow rate. Although claim 8 specifically recites an embodiment in which first flow rate is 20 to 200 sccm and the second flow rate is 600 sccm, the latter is only a specific value for the second flow rate and does not broadly teach that the second flow rate is larger than the first flow rate. The broader recitation that the second flow rate is greater than the first flow rate necessarily encompasses values other than 600 sccm for the second flow rate and, consequently, the newly added claim limitation in which the second gas “flows into the processing volume at a second flow rate that is larger than the first flow rate” is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-14, and 21 are similarly rejected due to their direct or indirect dependence on claim 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 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
New claim 21 recites that one or more silicon-containing layers each have “an abruptness that is less than 1.0.” However, it is unclear as to what is meant by an “abruptness” and how it is determined whether it has a value of less than 1.0 since there are no units associated with the value. Since the metes and bounds of patent protection sought cannot be readily determined the claim is therefore considered to be indefinite.
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 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0067006 to Hawrylchak, et al. (hereinafter “Hawrylchak”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0187940 to Huang, et al. (“Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Hawrylchak teaches a method of processing a substrate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method for processing a substrate), comprising:
positioning the substrate in a processing volume of a chamber (see Figs. 1-3, ¶[0046], and ¶[0053] which teach positioning a substrate (210) or (308) in a processing chamber (200) or (300), respectively);
heating the substrate to a substrate temperature that is 800 degrees Celsius or less (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] which teach that the substrate is heated to a temperature of about 650 °C in order to perform a reducing process in step (104));
maintaining the processing volume at a pressure within a range of 1.0 Torr to 8.0 Torr (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] which teach that the chamber pressure during step (104) is maintained at less than about 5 Torr; alternatively, see ¶[0035] which specifically teaches that the processing pressure during epitaxial growth in step (106) is 5 Torr);
flowing one or more silicon-containing gases and one or more diluent gases into the processing volume (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶[0035] which teach that a process gas such as disilane (Si2H6) is flowed into the chamber; see also ¶[0042], ¶[0079], ¶[0082], and ¶[0100] which teach the use of an inert gas as a carrier gas together with a process gas or the use of a diluent with the reactant gas(es); accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to flow one or more inert gases together with the silicon-containing gas in order to provide greater control over the concentration and flow rate of the precursor gas(es)),
the one or more silicon-containing gases comprising a first gas that flows into the processing volume at a first flow rate (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶[0035] which teach that a process gas such as disilane (Si2H6) is flowed into the chamber at a first flow rate), and
the one or more diluent gases comprising a second gas that flows into the processing volume at a second flow rate (see Figs. 1-3, ¶[0042], ¶[0079], ¶[0082], and ¶[0100] which teach the use of an inert gas as a carrier gas together with a process gas or the use of a diluent with the reactant gas(es) which necessarily flows into the chamber at a second flow rate);
reacting the one or more silicon-containing gases to form one or more reactants (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶[0035] which teach that a process gas such as disilane (Si2H6) is flowed into the chamber and are exposed to the heated substrate which necessarily produces one or more reactants which facilitate the epitaxial growth of a Si layer on the substrate); and
depositing the one or more reactants onto an exposed surface of the substrate to form one or more silicon-containing layers on the exposed surface, the one or more silicon-containing layers each having a single crystalline structure (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶[0035] which teach that an epitaxial Si layer is deposited onto the substrate as a result of being exposed to the Si2H6 process gas).
Hawrlychak does not teach that the first flow rate is within a range of 20 sccm to 200 sccm or that the second flow rate is larger than the first flow rate. However, in Figs. 1-2 and at least ¶¶[0040]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Huang teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of epitaxial Si and SiGe layers onto a substrate. In ¶[0046] Huang specifically teaches that the flow rate for the source gas is preferably in the overlapping range of 50 to 400 sccm while ¶[0042] teaches that the flow rate of the carrier gas may be in the range of 10 slm to 50 slm in a central region (10C) and in the range of 200 to 2,000 sccm in an edge region (10E). Moreover, since the flow rate of dislane and the inert carrier gas such as N2 determines the concentration of reactant species available and, consequently, the growth rate on the substrate, they are considered to be result-effective variables, i.e., variables which achieve a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal flow rate for the disilane as well as the type (i.e., nitrogen) and flow rate of the inert gas utilized in the method of Hawrylchak, including within the claimed range of 20 to 200 sccm for the disilane gas and a larger flow rate for the inert gas, that is as large as 10 to 50 slm in a central region thereof which is necessary to produce the desired precursor concentration, duration of exposure to the substrate, as well as the resulting growth rate and materials properties in the deposited Si epitaxial film.
Regarding claim 2, Hawrylchak teaches that prior to the flowing of the one or more silicon-containing gases: forming a plasma in the processing volume; and activating the exposed surface of the substrate using the plasma (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] which teach that the substrate is exposed to a hydrogen plasma in order to remove contaminants and activate the surface of the substrate as part of a reducing process in step (104)).
Regarding claim 3, Hawrylchak teaches that the substrate is heated to the substrate temperature prior to the forming of the plasma (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0034] which teach that the substrate is heated to the desired temperature of up to 650 °C prior to forming the plasma in step (104); alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to heat the substrate prior to forming the plasma in step (104) in order to provide thermal energy which facilitates more efficient removal of contaminants from the surface thereof).
Regarding claim 4, Hawrylchak teaches that the plasma is a hydrogen (H2) plasma, and the method further comprises, prior to the flowing of the one or more silicon- containing gases: extinguishing the plasma; and exhausting the processing volume (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] which teach that the plasma is a hydrogen plasma and that epitaxial growth is performed without the use of a plasma and after the substrate and chamber have been cleaned which necessarily means that the pump(s) used to produce the desired pressure have exhausted the process volume; alternatively, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to exhaust the chamber after performing a hydrogen plasma clean and prior to epitaxial growth in order to ensure that all contaminants have been removed from the system so that a higher quality epitaxial layer may be formed).
Regarding claim 6, Hawrylchak teaches that the one or more silicon-containing gases react with the exposed surface of the substrate to form the one or more reactants (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] which teach that the heated surface of the substrate is exposed to the Si-containing gas which necessarily results in the formation of one or more reactants which are deposited as a Si epitaxial layer), and the one or more silicon-containing gases and the one or more diluent gases flow into the processing volume through a ceiling of the processing volume (see Figs. 2-3 and at least ¶[0042] which teach that the first gas source (260) and inert carrier gas (252) flow into the reaction chamber through a ceiling of the reaction chamber).
Regarding claim 7, Hawrylchak teaches that the one or more silicon-containing gases comprise one or more of SiH4, Si2H6, or SiH2Cl2 (see ¶[0035] and ¶[0107] which each the use of silane, disilane, or dichlorosilane as the process gas).
Regarding claim 8, Hawrylchak teaches that the pressure is about 6.0 Torr, the substrate temperature is about 550 degrees Celsius, the first gas is Si2H6, and the second gas is nitrogen (N2) (see ¶[0033], ¶[0035], and ¶[0084] which teaches that the pressure may be in the vicinity of 6 Torr during steps (104) and (106), the temperature may be about 550 °C, and a process gas such as disilane (Si2H6) is flowed into the chamber in step (106); see also ¶[0039], ¶[0042], and ¶[0080] which teach the use of an inert carrier gas together with the precursor gas(es) which a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize as including nitrogen (N2) since it is a well-known inert gas that is frequently used as a diluent or carrier gas during semiconductor processing due to its ready availability, its compatibility with dislane, as well as its relatively stable and inert nature), but does not explicitly teach that the second flow rate is 600 SCCM. However, in Figs. 1-2 and at least ¶¶[0040]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Huang teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of epitaxial Si and SiGe layers onto a substrate. In ¶[0046] Huang specifically teaches that the flow rate for the source gas is preferably in the overlapping range of 50 to 400 sccm while ¶[0042] teaches that the flow rate of the carrier gas may be in the range of 200 to 2,000 sccm. Moreover, since the flow rate of dislane and the inert carrier gas such as N2 determines the concentration of reactant species available and, consequently, the growth rate on the substrate, they are considered to be result-effective variables, i.e., variables which achieve a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal flow rate for the disilane as well as the type (i.e., nitrogen) and flow rate of the inert gas utilized in the method of Hawrylchak, including within the claimed range of 20 to 200 sccm and 600 sccm, respectively, that is necessary to produce the desired growth rate and materials properties in the resulting Si epitaxial film.
Regarding claim 9, Hawrylchak teaches that the pressure is about 1.0 Torr (see at least ¶[0033] and ¶[0084] which teach that the pressure during steps (104) and (106) may be in the vicinity of 1 Torr), and the one or more silicon-containing gases include the first gas is Si2H6 (see ¶[0035] which teaches that a process gas such as disilane (Si2H6) is flowed into the chamber).
Regarding claim 10, Hawrylchak teaches flowing one or more germanium-containing gases into the processing volume through the ceiling, wherein the one or more silicon-containing gases react with the one or more germanium-containing gases to form the one or more reactants (see Figs. 2-3 and at least ¶[0042] which teach that a first gas source (260) and second gas source (262) flow into the reaction chamber through a ceiling of the reaction chamber; see also ¶[0035] which teaches that both a Si- and Ge-containing precursor gas may be flowed into the reaction chamber in order to form one or more reactants which are deposited as a SiGe epitaxial film on the substrate).
Regarding claim 11, Hawrylchak teaches that the one or more germanium-containing gases comprise one or more of GeH4 or GeF4 (see ¶[0035] which teaches the use of germane (GeH4) as the Ge-containing precursor gas).
Regarding claim 12, Hawrylchak teaches that the pressure is about 6.0 Torr, the substrate temperature is about 550 degrees Celsius, the first gas is Si2H6, the second gas is nitrogen (N2); and the one or more germanium-containing gases include GeH4 carried in hydrogen (H2) (see ¶[0033], ¶[0035], and ¶[0084] which teaches that the pressure may be in the vicinity of 6 Torr during steps (104) and (106), the temperature may be about 550 °C, and process gases such as disilane (Si2H6) and germane (GeH4) are flowed into the chamber in step (106); see also ¶[0039], ¶[0042], and ¶[0080] which teach the use of an inert carrier gas together with the precursor gas(es) which a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize as including nitrogen (N2) or hydrogen (H2) since these are well-known inert or carrier gases that are frequently used as a diluent or carrier gas during semiconductor processing due to their ready availability, compatibility with dislane and germane, as well as their relatively stable and inert nature), but does not explicitly teach that the second flow rate is 600 SCCM, and the third flow rate is within a range of 10 SCCM to 1,000 SCCM. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 8, in Figs. 1-2 and at least ¶¶[0040]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Huang teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of epitaxial Si and SiGe layers onto a substrate. In ¶[0046] Huang specifically teaches that the flow rate for the source gas is preferably in the overlapping range of 50 to 400 sccm while ¶[0042] teaches that the flow rate of the carrier gas may be in the range of 200 to 2,000 sccm. Moreover, since the flow rate of dislane, germane, and the inert carrier gas such as N2 determines the concentration of reactant species available and, consequently, the growth rate and the concentration (x) of the Si1-xGex alloy formed on the substrate, they are considered to be result-effective variables, i.e., variables which achieve a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal flow rate for germane as well as the type (i.e., nitrogen) and flow rate of the inert gas utilized in the method of Hawrylchak, including within the claimed range of 10 to 1,000 sccm and 600 sccm, respectively, that is necessary to produce the desired growth rate and materials properties in the resulting Si1-xGex epitaxial film.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak in view of Huang and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0144124 to Kim, et al. (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 13, Hawrylchak and Huang do not teach that the GeH4 is 10% of the third flow rate, and the hydrogen (H2) is 90% of the third flow rate. However, in at least Figs. 2-3, ¶[0020], and ¶¶[0031]-[0043] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kim teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of Si, Ge, and/or SiGe epitaxial layers from Si- and Ge-containing precursor gases together with a carrier gas such as H2. In ¶[0033] Kim specifically teaches the use of GeH4 as the Ge-containing precursor which is diluted to 10 to 30 volume % with hydrogen (H2) as a carrier gas such that it is comprised of 10 % GeH4 and 90% H2. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kim and would be motivated to utilize GeH4 diluted to 10% in a carrier gas comprised of H2 as the Ge-containing precursor in the method of Hawrylchak and Huang with the motivation for doing so being to deposit a high quality Ge-containing layer at the desired growth rate and with the desired concentration and materials properties. Moreover, diluting the GeH4 to 10% in a H2 carrier gas as per the teachings of Kim would involve nothing more than the use of a known precursor concentration and carrier gas according to its intended use.
Regarding claim 14, Hawrylchak teaches that the pressure is about 1.0 Torr (see at least ¶[0033] and ¶[0084] which teach that the pressure during steps (104) and (106) may be in the vicinity of 1 Torr), the first gas is Si2H6; and the one or more germanium-containing gases include GeH4 carried in hydrogen (H2) (see ¶[0035] which teaches that process gases such as disilane (Si2H6) and germane (GeH4) are flowed into the chamber in step (106); see also ¶[0039], ¶[0042], and ¶[0080] which teach the use of an inert carrier gas together with the precursor gas(es) which a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would recognize as including hydrogen (H2) since these are well-known inert or carrier gases that are frequently used as a diluent or carrier gas during semiconductor processing due to their ready availability, compatibility with dislane and germane, as well as their relatively stable and inert nature), but does not explicitly teach that the one or more germanium- containing gases include GeH4 carried in hydrogen (H2) and flowing into the processing volume at a third flow rate within a range of 10 SCCM to 1,000 SCCM. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 12, in Figs. 1-2 and at least ¶¶[0040]-[0047] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Huang teaches an analogous system and method for the deposition of epitaxial Si and SiGe layers onto a substrate. In ¶[0046] Huang specifically teaches that the flow rate for the source gas is preferably in the overlapping range of 50 to 400 sccm. Moreover, since the flow rate of dislane, germane, and the inert carrier gas such as H2 determines the concentration of reactant species available and, consequently, the growth rate and the concentration (x) of the Si1-xGex alloy formed on the substrate, they are considered to be result-effective variables, i.e., variables which achieve a recognized result. See, e.g., In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal flow rate for the disilane and germane precursor gases utilized in the method of Hawrylchak, including within the claimed range of 20 to 200 sccm and 10 to 1,000 sccm, respectively, that is necessary to produce the desired growth rate and materials properties in the resulting Si1-xGex epitaxial film.
Hawrylchak and Huang do not teach that the GeH4 is 10% of the third flow rate, and the hydrogen (H2) is 90% of the third flow rate. However, in at least Figs. 2-3, ¶[0020], and ¶¶[0031]-[0043] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Kim teaches an analogous system and method for the growth of Si, Ge, and/or SiGe epitaxial layers from Si- and Ge-containing precursor gases together with a carrier gas such as H2. In ¶[0033] Kim specifically teaches the use of GeH4 as the Ge-containing precursor which is diluted to 10 to 30 volume % with hydrogen (H2) as a carrier gas such that it is comprised of 10 % GeH4 and 90% H2. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Kim and would be motivated to utilize GeH4 diluted to 10% in a carrier gas comprised of H2 as the Ge-containing precursor in the method of Hawrylchak and Huang with the motivation for doing so being to deposit a high quality Ge-containing layer at the desired growth rate and with the desired concentration and materials properties. Moreover, diluting the GeH4 to 10% in a H2 carrier gas as per the teachings of Kim would involve nothing more than the use of a known precursor concentration and carrier gas according to its intended use.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawrylchak in view of Huang and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2002/0022351 to Schmolke, et al. (“Schmolke”) and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0141173 to Moriya, et al. (“Moriya”).
Regarding claim 21, Hawrylchak teaches that
the substrate temperature is within a range of 545 degrees Celsius to 555 degree Celsius, and the substrate temperature is maintained during the activating of the exposed surface and during the depositing of the one or more reactants (see ¶[0033], ¶[0035], ¶[0065], and ¶[0084] which teaches that the temperature may be about 550 °C during steps (104) and (106));
the pressure is within a range of 5.8 Torr to 6.2 Torr, and the pressure is maintained during the activating of the exposed surface and during the depositing of the one or more reactants (see ¶[0033], ¶[0035], and ¶[0084] which teaches that the pressure may be in the vicinity of 6 Torr during steps (104) and (106));
the one or more silicon-containing gases and one or more diluent gases flow into the processing volume through the ceiling of the processing volume (see Fig. 2 and ¶[0039] which teach that the process gases and inert gases are supplied from a gas source (252) which flows into the processing volume (222) through a gas distribution plate (230) located at a ceiling of the chamber).
Hawrylchak and Huang do not teach that the one or more silicon-containing layers each have: an abruptness that is less than 1.0, and a surface roughness that is less than 0.2 nm. However, since the methos of Hawrylchak and Huang perform each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely an abruptness of less than 1.0 and a surface roughness that is less than 0.2 nm. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, an abruptness of less than 1.0 and a surface roughness of less than 0.2, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Alternatively, in at least ¶¶[0009]-[0013], ¶¶[0025]-[0028], and Example 1 in ¶¶[0030]-[0034] Schmolke teaches an analogous method of forming a high quality Si surface with minimal surface roughness for epitaxial growth thereupon. This is specifically achieved by depositing a Si epitaxial layer onto a Si substrate by CVD from Si-containing precursor gases such as silane. By pretreating the surface of the Si wafer and then depositing an epitaxial Si layer thereupon under specific growth conditions an atomically flat surface with a surface roughness of 0.07 nm was obtained. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Schmolke and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal surface pretreatment and Si epitaxial growth conditions necessary to produce an abruptness of less than 1.0 and a surface roughness of less than 0.2 nm with the motivation for doing so being to facilitate the growth of electronic devices with even smaller feature sizes.
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Hawrylchak does not explicitly teach that the silicon-containing gases and one or more diluent gases flow into the processing volume through the ceiling in order to deposit an epitaxial layer, this would have been obvious in view of he teachings of Moiya. In at least Figs. 14A-B and ¶¶[0192]-[0194] Moriya teaches embodiments of a processing furnace (302) and (402) in which the desired precursor gases may be supplied either through the ceiling via supply ports (332a-b) together with a showerhead (303s) or from the side via supply ports (432a-b), respectively. Thus, performing epitaxial growth via precursor delivery through the ceiling or from the side are considered to be known equivalents for the same purpose. It therefore would have been within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the gas delivery systemin Fig. 2 of Hawrylchak to deliver the silicon-containing and diluent gases to the substrate through the ceiling in order to deposit a thin film thereupon with the motivation for doing so being to, for example, provide a more uniform flow of precursor gases across the entire substrate surface during deposition.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 3, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action which were necessitated by applicants’ claim amendments.
Applicants’ proposed title has been reviewed, but it remains overly generic and is not specifically describe the elected method. A proposed replacement title has been suggested by the Examiner.
Applicants initially argue that since Fig. 2, ¶[0042], and ¶[0046] of Huang refer to flow rates at an edge region (10E) and a central region (10C) of a wafer (10), Huang therefore does not teach flow rates at which the Si-containing and diluent gases flow into the processing volume. See applicants’ 2/3/2026 reply, pp. 11-12. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. Although Huang may teach different flow rates at central and edge regions of a wafer (10), both of these regions are necessarily within the growth chamber and, hence, are within the processing volume. This is necessarily the case because the wafer (10) itself isn’t present with only a portion of the wafer inside the growth chamber while other portions are located outside the growth chamber. In order for deposition to occur substantially uniformly across the entire surface the entirety of the wafer necessarily is present within the processing volume of the growth chamber. This is exemplified by at least Fig. 2A of Hawrylchak which shows that the entirety of wafer (210) is present within the processing volume (222). Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that Huang does, in fact, teach supplying precursor gases into the processing volume.
Applicants then argue that Huang does not recognize the flow rates of the Si-containing and diluent gases as result-effective variables. Id. at p. 12. This argument is not found persuasive as it is self-evident that the flow rate and relative concentration of the Si-containing and diluent gases determines materials properties such as the growth rate. This is necessarily the case as a higher flow rate and a higher concentration supplies more of the precursor per unit time which then leads to a higher growth rate as more of the material to be deposited is supplied in a given time interval. It is also noted that prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). See also MPEP 2141(III). Thus, prior art is not limited to what it explicitly teaches, but also includes the technical know-how of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicants argue against the rejection of claims 2 and 4 by contending that ¶¶[0032]-[0036] of Hawrylchak are silent regarding the step of forming a plasma in the processing volume and the steps of extinguishing the plasma and exhausting the processing volume prior to flowing the silicon-containing gases and that the obviousness rationale presupposes that the plasma clean and epitaxial growth occur in the same processing volume. Applicants’ arguments are noted, but are not persuasive. In ¶[0032] Hawrylchak specifically teaches that the reducing process in step (104) may use a hydrogen-containing plasma to remove contaminants. Then, since the epitaxial growth process in step (106) and ¶[0035] of the specification is performed by CVD (i.e., without the use of a plasma) under a reduced pressure of as low as 5 Torr, the plasma is necessarily extinguished and the chamber is evacuated by the pumps that are continuously running to maintain the desired base pressure. It is noted that the steps (104)-(106) outlined in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0032]-[0036] are not specifically disclosed as involving a transfer to a different chamber and the chamber in Fig. 2A is capable of performing all of the processes in steps (104)-(106) through the use of suitable process gases. It is also noted that in at least ¶[0036] Hawrylchak specifically teaches that a number of the processes may be performed in one chamber or in two chambers. Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a single chamber to perform multiple different processes in order to, for example, benefit from the use of a more compact system having a smaller footprint.
Applicants argue against the rejection of claim 3 by contending that ¶¶[0032]-[0034] of Hawrylchak do not teach or suggest that the substrate is heated prior to forming the plasma. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. In order for the plasma to have the desired cleaning effect on the substrate, the substrate itself is necessarily preheated to the desired temperature prior to forming the plasma. Even if it is assumed arguendo that Hawrylchak does not explicitly teach heating the substrate to the desired temperature before forming the plasma, the Examiner has also provided a motivation for doing so. In this case an ordinary artisan would be motivated to heat the substrate to the desired temperature prior to forming the plasma in step (104) in order to provide the substrate with the thermal energy necessary to facilitate more efficient etching and removal of contaminants from the surface.
Applicants then argue against the rejection of claims 6 and 10 by contending that ¶[0042] of Hawrylchak does not teach or suggest supplying a silicon-containing gas and a diluent gas into the reaction chamber through a ceiling of the reaction chamber. Id. at p. 13. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is pointed out that Fig. 2 and at least ¶[0042] of Hawrylchak teach an embodiment of a processing chamber in which a first gas source (260) and a second gas source (262) are used to flow two separate gases into a processing volume (222) through a gas distribution plate (230) which is located on a ceiling of the reaction chamber. It is the Examiner’s position that the processing chamber (200) in Fig. 2 shows an embodiment of a system in which gases are delivered to the substrate through the ceiling and this same system is also capable of being used for epitaxial growth when a silicon-containing precursor and a diluent gas are utilized as the first (260) and second (262) gas sources. The Examiner’s position is supported by at least Figs. 14A-B and ¶¶[0192]-[0194] of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0141173 to Moriya, et al. which teaches embodiments of a processing furnace (302) and (402) in which the desired precursor gases are supplied through the ceiling via supply ports (332a-b) or from the side via supply ports (432a-b), respectively.
Finally, applicants argue against the rejection of claims 8 and 12 by contending that ¶[0084] of Hawrylchak does not teach a deposition temperature of 550 °C and traverses subject matter that is “well-known” at p. 10, 12, and 14 of the non-final Office Action. Id. at p. 13. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. The rejection of claims 8 and 12 also refers to ¶[0035] of Hawrylchak which specifically teaches that the epitaxial layer may be deposited at a temperature of 450 to 650 °C which includes the claimed temperature of 550 °C. With respect to the “well-known” subject matter, this appears to be with reference to Hawrylchak’s disclosure of the use of an inert carrier gas in ¶[0039], ¶[0042], and ¶[0080]. It is the Examiner’s position that nitrogen (N2) is a known inert gas in the semiconductor industry that is routinely used to purge growth chambers and also is commonly used as a carrier gas. The Examiner’s position is supported by at least ¶¶[0022]-[0024] of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2005/0079692 to Kim, et al. which was cited as prior art of record and which teaches a method of depositing epitaxial SiGe which utilizes Si- and Ge-containing precursors with the use of H2 and/or N2 as a carrier gas.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714