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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the specification in the Office Action filed 12 December 2025, Applicant’s amendments in the reply filed 10 March 2026 are acknowledged and overcome the associated objection. As such, the associated objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office Action filed 12 December 2025, Applicant’s amendments in the reply filed 10 March 2026 are acknowledged and overcome the associated rejection. As such, the associated rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action filed 12 December 2025, Applicant’s amendments in the reply filed 10 March 2026 are acknowledged but are not found persuasive.
On page 1 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant refers to “a discussion that Barbosa does not teach simultaneously introducing gases to a process chamber” in the previous interview on 29 January 2026, and appears to center much of the amendments to the independent claims around limitations regarding said simultaneity. However, for clarity of record, the Examiner must point out that, in the Interview Summary filed 3 February 2026, the Examiner states “providing a limitation that requires the premixing of the process gases in question in a separate location before the gaseous mix is then introduced to the reaction chamber may potentially overcome the present rejections”, which regards ex situ mixing of said gases and is distinct from a simultaneous introduction and/or simultaneous exposure of said gases.
On page 1 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues that the “present claims are amended herein, without prejudice or disclaimer, to recite that the gases included in the "process gas" are supplied "simultaneously", which is not believed to be taught by Barbosa”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
BARBOSA clearly teaches the forming of a process gas (Par. 44: “Although separately illustrated, substeps 106-110 [of step 104] can overlap in time, such that the silicon precursor, the germanium precursor, and the and one or more p-type dopant precursors are all provided to the reaction chamber for a period of time”. That is, BARBOSA teaches a forming of the process gas in situ.) comprising a germanium element-containing gas (Fig. 1: 108), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a disilane compound (Fig. 1: 106; Par. 45) having at least two chlorine atoms (Par. 45); and selectively forming (Par. 61) a silicon germanium layer (Fig. 4: 414) on the semiconductor film (410) by simultaneously exposing (Par. 44) the semiconductor film (410) to the germanium element-containing gas (108), the hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms (106) as the process gas, as provided for in Claim 1. Introducing the germanium element-containing gas, the hydrogen gas, and the disilane compound into a reaction chamber at the same time clearly results in the mixing of the gases in situ to form a “process gas” and results in the simultaneous exposure and/or simultaneous introduction of the present gases and/or “process gas” onto the semiconductor film or active region. Further, “simultaneously” is defined as “at the same time” (www.merriam-webster.com), which clearly means that the present gases and/or “process gas” are introduced at the same time and/or the semiconductor film is exposed to the present gasses and/or “process gas” at the same time. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, “simultaneously exposing” and/or “simultaneously introducing” the process gas clearly means that all of the present gases are provided together in the reaction chamber at the same time. Thus, the introduction of separate gases at varying times that overlap, as taught by BARBOSA, is indeed the same as forming a "process gas" by "simultaneously" supplying the present gases into the reaction chamber. As such, Applicant’s amended claims are not deemed to patentably distinguish Applicant’s claimed method from the known method of prior art of record.
On page 4 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues “when Barbosa is read as a whole, one is not directed to select “a disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms” from the numerous possible “silicon precursors””. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Admittedly, while BARBOSA does not exclusively provide “disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms” options for the disclosed silicon precursor (BARBOSA Par. 45) a substantial portion of said options indeed meet these criteria. Further, Applicant’s associated arguments surrounding Par. 62 & 65 of BARBOSA regard different embodiments of BARBOSA than the embodiment provided—the embodiment of Fig. 1: 100—for the rejection of the instant claims.
On page 5 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues “Barbosa does not teach or suggest that its gases are supplied simultaneously”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For reasoning of the Examiner’s position, see previous statements regarding the definition of simultaneity and its use in the context of the instant claim language.
On page 6 of the aforementioned reply, Applicant argues “Barbosa does not teach or suggest gases that do not include an additional etch gas”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
BARBOSA clearly teaches this limitation as claimed in Claim 23 of BARBOSA: “an etchant is not used during the step of forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer”, which covers all etchants: additional, gaseous, or otherwise.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 8, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BARBOSA (US 20240006176 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
BARBOSA discloses:
A method (Fig. 1) of manufacturing an integrated circuit device (Par. 39), the method (Fig. 1) comprising:
forming a semiconductor film (Fig. 4: 410, “first surface”; Par. 41, 61, 75) and an insulating film (Fig. 4: 412, “second surface”; Par. 41, 61, 75) on a substrate (Fig. 4: 402);
forming a process gas comprising
(Par. 44 teaches “precursors can be provided to the reaction chamber through one or more gas injectors, such as multi-port injectors (MPIs) including a plurality of individual port injectors for providing a gas mixture into the reaction chamber. Various combinations of the precursors can be supplied to one or more of the individual port injectors to fine tune concentration profiles as desired. That is, Par. 44 teaches an in situ combination of gaseous precursors, which constitutes forming a process gas.)
a germanium element-containing gas (Fig. 1: 108), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a disilane compound (Fig. 1: 106; Par. 45) having at least two chlorine atoms (Par. 45); and
selectively forming (Par. 61) a silicon germanium layer (Fig. 4: 414) on the semiconductor film (410) by simultaneously exposing (Par. 44) the semiconductor film (410) to the germanium element-containing gas (108), the hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms (106) as the process gas.
(Par. 44: “Although separately illustrated, substeps 106-110 can overlap in time, such that the silicon precursor, the germanium precursor, and the and one or more p-type dopant precursors are all provided to the reaction chamber for a period of time”, which constitutes simultaneously exposing 410 to 108, the hydrogen gas, and 106.)
Regarding Claim 2,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the disilane compound (106) includes dichlorodisilane, trichlorodisilane, tetrachlorodisilane, pentachlorodisilane, or hexachlorodisilane (Par. 45).
Regarding Claim 3,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
the forming of the silicon germanium layer comprises adsorbing SiCl2 on the semiconductor film, the SiCl2 being produced by dissociation of the disilane compound
(As provided for in at least the entirety of Claim 1 and the remainder of this claim, the disclosed method of BARBOSA and the claimed method of the instant application for forming the silicon germanium layer are substantially identical processes. As such, the formation of the silicon germanium layer comprising adsorbing SiCl2 on the semiconductor film, the SiCl2 being produced by dissociation of the disilane compound, as claimed above, is presumed inherent to the process of BARBOSA, MPEP 2112 III.)
wherein the forming of the silicon germanium layer is performed at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C.
(Par. 42 teaches 104 may be performed at a temperature between about 350 °C to about 500 °C, which discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, as the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the claimed range relative to the disclosed range of BARBOSA, the disclosed range of BARBOSA is narrow about the claimed range, and the claimed range falls completely within the disclosed range of BARBOSA. Therefore, the disclosed range of BARBOSA anticipates the claimed range.).
Regarding Claim 4,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the germanium element-containing gas (108) includes germane or digermane (Par. 46).
Regarding Claim 6,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the insulating film (412) includes a nitrogen-containing insulating film (Par. 61),
and the semiconductor film (410) includes a silicon film or a silicon germanium layer (Par. 61).
Regarding Claim 7,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the process gas (As described for Claim 1) further includes at least one dopant precursor (110), and
the at least one dopant precursor (Fig. 1: 110) includes a boron precursor or a gallium precursor (Fig. 1: 110).
Regarding Claim 8,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the process gas (As described for Claim 1) includes pentachlorodisilane (Par. 45), germane (Par. 46), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a boron dopant precursor (Fig. 1: 110).
Regarding Claim 21,
BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the selectively forming the silicon germanium layer is performed without adding an additional etch gas.
(BARBOSA Claim 23 recites “an etchant is not used during the step of forming the p-type doped silicon germanium layer” wherein the selective nature of said forming is established in BARBOSA Claim 22 “the p-type doped silicon germanium layer is selectively formed” upon which BARBOSA Claim 23 depends.)
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BARBOSA in view of HUANG (US 20200035489 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
BARBOSA does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein,
in the forming of the silicon germanium layer, a ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30%.
However, BARBOSA Par. 31 does disclose that in 104, a ratio of germanium atoms to silicon and germanium atoms in the resulting silicon germanium layer may range from 0 % to 100 %, 20 % to 80 %, or 40 % to 60 %.
Additionally, BARBOSA discloses the claimed invention except for the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30%. Further, BARBOSA teaches the general condition of this claim, as “ratios of the silicon source gas and the germanium source gas can be varied in order to provide control of the elemental concentrations of the silicon, germanium, and dopant while growing [the silicon germanium layer]”, as evidenced by HUANG Par. 37. Further still, the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed ranges of BARBOSA.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas to at least 30 %, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 11 – 15, 19, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU (US 20210384198 A1) in view of BARBOSA.
Examiner’s Note
In addition to the original figures, consider the below annotated figure of CHU.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11,
CHU discloses:
A method (100) of manufacturing an integrated circuit device (200), the method (100) comprising:
forming a fin-type active region (Fig. 3: 210A/210B) on a substrate (Fig. 3: 202),
the fin-type active region (210A/210B) extending in a first lateral direction (Y);
forming a plurality of dummy gate structures (Fig. 5: 224) on the fin-type active region (210A/210B),
the plurality of dummy gate structures (224) extending in a second lateral direction (X), and
each dummy gate structure of the plurality of dummy gate structures (224) including
a dummy gate layer (Fig. 5: 216) and
an insulating capping layer (Fig. 5: 218) covering the dummy gate layer (216),
wherein the second lateral direction (X) intersects the first lateral direction (Y);
forming a plurality of insulating spacers (Fig. 6: 226) covering both sidewalls of each of the plurality of dummy gate structures (224);
(As seen in Fig. 6)
etching (Fig. 1: 110; Fig. 7; Par. 24) a portion of the fin-type active region (210A/210B) by using the plurality of dummy gate structures (224) and the plurality of insulating spacers (226) as an etch mask (Fig. 7; Par. 24) to form a recess (Fig. 7: 228) in the fin-type active region (210A/210B); and
forming an exposed surface (Corresponding to Fig. 11: SRF2) on the fin-type active region (210A/210B); and
selectively forming a source/drain region (Fig. 11: 238) on the exposed surface (SRF2) of the fin-type active region (210A/210B),
(Although “selective formation” of the source/drain region 238 is not explicitly disclosed in the specification of CHU, by Fig. 11, 238 is clearly formed only on SRF1 and SRF2, which constitutes selectively forming the source/drain region on the exposed surface of the fin-type active region.)
[by a suitable epitaxial process, such as CVD deposition techniques] (Par. 27),
[wherein the source/drain region is p-type] (Par. 27).
CHU does not disclose:
selectively forming a source/drain region…
by forming a process gas comprising
a germanium element-containing gas, hydrogen gas, and a disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms, and
simultaneously introducing the germanium element-containing gas, the hydrogen gas, and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms as the process gas to the exposed surface of the fin-type active region.
BARBOSA discloses:
selectively forming (Par. 26) a source/drain region (Par. 26, which is p-type)
by forming a process gas comprising
(Par. 44 teaches “precursors can be provided to the reaction chamber through one or more gas injectors, such as multi-port injectors (MPIs) including a plurality of individual port injectors for providing a gas mixture into the reaction chamber. Various combinations of the precursors can be supplied to one or more of the individual port injectors to fine tune concentration profiles as desired. That is, Par. 44 teaches an in situ combination of gaseous precursors, which constitutes forming a process gas.)
a germanium element-containing gas (108), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a disilane compound (106; Par. 45) having at least two chlorine atoms (Par. 45), and
simultaneously introducing (Par. 44) the germanium element-containing gas (108), the hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms (106) as the process gas.
(Par. 44: “Although separately illustrated, substeps 106-110 [of 104] can overlap in time, such that the silicon precursor, the germanium precursor, and the and one or more p-type dopant precursors are all provided to the reaction chamber for a period of time”, which constitutes simultaneously introducing 108, the hydrogen gas, and 106.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of CHU with those of BARBOSA such that the method of forming the source/drain region of BARBOSA is used to form the source/drain region of CHU to enable the selective formation of a source/drain region on the exposed surface of the fin-type active region, by forming a process gas comprising a germanium element-containing gas, hydrogen gas, and a disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms, and simultaneously introducing the germanium element-containing gas, the hydrogen gas, and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms as the process gas to the exposed surface of the fin-type active region in CHU according to the teachings of BARBOSA, as CHU discloses said source/drain regions may be p-type—CHU Par. 27—and the selective formation thereof may be carried out “by a suitable epitaxial process, such as CVD deposition techniques”—CHU Par. 27—but does not disclose the details of said CVD deposition process. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for such a method of forming which discloses the details of such a CVD deposition process recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, said method provided by BARBOSA meets these criteria, as both the inventions of CHU and BARBOSA are from the same field of endeavor, and—similar to CHU—BARBOSA discloses the selective formation of p-type source/drain regions—BARBOSA Par. 39—via a CVD process—BARBOSA Par. 41—for a similar FinFET device structure, BARBOSA Par. 39.
Regarding Claim 12,
CHU does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
in the forming of the source/drain region,
the disilane compound includes dichlorodisilane, trichlorodisilane, tetrachlorodisilane, pentachlorodisilane, or hexachlorodisilane, and
the germanium element-containing gas includes germane or digermane.
BARBOSA discloses:
in the forming of the source/drain region,
the disilane compound includes dichlorodisilane, trichlorodisilane, tetrachlorodisilane, pentachlorodisilane, or hexachlorodisilane (Par. 45),
and the germanium element-containing gas includes germane or digermane (Par. 46).
Regarding Claim 13,
CHU does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein
the forming of the source/drain region is performed at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C.
BARBOSA discloses:
the forming of the source/drain region is performed at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C.
(Par. 42 teaches 104 may be performed at a temperature between about 350 °C to about 500 °C, which discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, as the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the claimed range relative to the disclosed range of BARBOSA, the disclosed range of BARBOSA is narrow about the claimed range, and the claimed range falls completely within the disclosed range of BARBOSA. Therefore, the disclosed range of BARBOSA anticipates the claimed range.)
Regarding Claim 14,
CHU does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein,
in the forming of the source/drain region, the process gas further includes a boron precursor.
BARBOSA discloses:
in the forming of the source/drain region (104), the process gas further includes a boron precursor (110).
Regarding Claim 15,
CHU does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein: in
the forming of the source/drain region,
the process gas includes pentachlorodisilane, germane and hydrogen gas, and
the forming of the source/drain region includes
simultaneously supplying the pentachlorodisilane, the germane, and the hydrogen gas onto the substrate.
BARBOSA discloses:
the forming of the source/drain region,
the process gas includes pentachlorodisilane, germane and hydrogen gas, and
(As stated for Claims 12 and 11, respectively.)
the forming of the source/drain region includes
simultaneously supplying the pentachlorodisilane, the germane, and the hydrogen gas onto the substrate.
(Par. 44 teaches 104 may include simultaneously supplying the disilane compound 106—which may be pentachlorodisilane, as previously stated for Claim 12—and the germanium element-containing gas 108—which may be germane, as previously stated for Claim 12—onto the substrate. Further, Par. 38 teaches hydrogen gas may be provided together with 106 and 108.)
Regarding Claim 19,
CHU discloses:
A method (100) of manufacturing an integrated circuit device (200), the method (100) comprising:
forming a fin-type active region (Fig. 3: 210A/210B) on a substrate (Fig. 3: 202),
the fin-type active region (210A/210B) extending in a first lateral direction (Y);
forming a plurality of dummy gate structures (Fig. 5: 224) on the fin-type active region (210A/210B),
the plurality of dummy gate structures (224) extending in a second lateral direction (X), and
each dummy gate structure (224) including
a dummy gate layer (Fig. 5: 216) and
an insulating capping layer (Fig. 5: 218) covering the dummy gate layer (216),
wherein the second lateral direction (X) intersects with the first lateral direction (Y);
forming a plurality of insulating spacers (Fig. 6: 226) covering both sidewalls of each of the plurality of dummy gate structures (224);
(As seen in Fig. 6)
forming a nanosheet stack (Fig. 3: 204) apart from a fin top surface (Corresponding to Fig. 11: SRF1) of the fin-type active region (210A/210B),
the nanosheet stack (204) facing the fin top surface (SRF1) of the fin-type active region (210A/210B) in a vertical direction (-Z), and
(As seen in Fig. 3)
the nanosheet stack (204) including a plurality of nanosheets (Fig. 3: 208/206) that are at different vertical (-Z) distances from the fin top surface (SRF1) of the fin-type active region (210A/210B);
(As seen in Fig. 3)
etching (Fig. 1: 110; Fig. 7; Par. 24) a portion of the fin-type active region (210A/210B) by using the plurality of dummy gate structures (224) and the plurality of insulating spacers (226) as an etch mask (Fig. 7; Par. 24) to form a recess (Fig. 7: 228) in the fin-type active region (210A/210B); and
selectively epitaxially growing a silicon germanium layer (Fig. 11: 238)
(Par. 27: “p-type epitaxial source/drain [238] features may include…SiGe [or] boron-doped SiGe”.)
(Although “selective” epitaxial growth of the silicon germanium layer 238 is not explicitly disclosed in the specification of CHU, 238 is clearly grown only from SRF1 and SRF2 by Fig. 11, which constitutes selectively epitaxially growing the silicon germanium layer.)
from a surface (Fig. 11: portion of SRF1 exposed prior to said growth, as seen in Fig. 10) of the fin-type active region (210A/210B) and a surface (Fig. 11: SRF2) of each of the plurality of nanosheets (208/206)
…
to form a source/drain region.
(Fig 12: the region immediately surrounding and comprising 238 may be construed as the claimed “source/drain region”, as Par. 27 teaches 238 are “source/drain features”.)
CHU does not disclose:
selectively epitaxially growing a silicon germanium layer…
at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C, by
forming a process gas comprising
a germanium element-containing gas, hydrogen gas, and a disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms, and
simultaneously introducing the germanium element-containing gas, the hydrogen gas, and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms as the process gas to the surface of the fin-type active region and the surface of each of the plurality of nanosheets to form a source/drain region.
BARBOSA discloses:
selectively epitaxially growing a silicon germanium layer (Fig. 1: 104 of 100; Fig. 4: 414)…
(Par. 39: “Examples of the disclosure relate to (e.g., epitaxial) deposition p-type doped silicon germanium layers.”; Par. 61: “[100] can be used to selectively deposit a p-type doped silicon germanium layer”.)
at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C, by
(Par. 42 teaches 104 may be performed at a temperature between about 350 °C to about 500 °C, which discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity, as the instant disclosure provides no criticality for the claimed range relative to the disclosed range of BARBOSA, the disclosed range of BARBOSA is narrow about the claimed range, and the claimed range falls completely within the disclosed range of BARBOSA. Therefore, the disclosed range of BARBOSA anticipates the claimed range.)
forming a process gas comprising
(Par. 44 teaches “precursors can be provided to the reaction chamber through one or more gas injectors, such as multi-port injectors (MPIs) including a plurality of individual port injectors for providing a gas mixture into the reaction chamber. Various combinations of the precursors can be supplied to one or more of the individual port injectors to fine tune concentration profiles as desired. That is, Par. 44 teaches an in situ combination of gaseous precursors, which constitutes forming a process gas.)
a germanium element-containing gas (Fig. 1: 108), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a disilane compound (Fig. 1: 106; Par. 45) having at least two chlorine atoms (Par. 45), and
simultaneously introducing (Par. 44) the germanium element-containing gas (108), the hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms (106) as the process gas
(Par. 44: “Although separately illustrated, substeps 106-110 can overlap in time, such that the silicon precursor, the germanium precursor, and the and one or more p-type dopant precursors are all provided to the reaction chamber for a period of time”, which constitutes simultaneously introducing 108, the hydrogen gas, and 106.)
…
to form a source/drain region (Par. 26).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of CHU with those of BARBOSA such that the method of forming the source/drain region of BARBOSA is used to form the source/drain region of CHU to enable the selective epitaxial growth of a silicon germanium layer at a temperature of about 350 °C to about 450 °C, by forming a process gas comprising a germanium element-containing gas, hydrogen gas, and a disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms, and simultaneously introducing the germanium element-containing gas, the hydrogen gas, and the disilane compound having at least two chlorine atoms as the process gas to the surface of the fin-type active region and the surface of each of the plurality of nanosheets to form a source/drain region in CHU according to the teachings of BARBOSA, as CHU discloses said source/drain region may be selectively epitaxially grown p-type silicon germanium—CHU Par. 27 & Fig. 11—and the formation thereof may be carried out “by a suitable epitaxial process, such as CVD deposition techniques”—CHU Par. 27—but does not disclose the details of said CVD deposition process. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for such a method of forming which discloses the details of such a CVD deposition process recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, said method provided by BARBOSA meets these criteria, as both the inventions of CHU and BARBOSA are from the same field of endeavor, and—similar to CHU—BARBOSA discloses selectively epitaxially grown p-type silicon germanium source/drain regions—BARBOSA Par. 26, 39 & 61—via a CVD process—BARBOSA Par. 41—for a similar FinFET device structure, BARBOSA Par. 39.
Regarding Claim 22,
CHU in view of BARBOSA discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein
the forming of the source/drain region comprises adsorbing SiCl₂ on the exposed surface of the fin-type active region, the SiCl₂ being produced by dissociation of the disilane compound.
(As provided for in at least the entirety of Claim 11, the disclosed method of CHU in view of BARBOSA and the claimed method of the instant application for forming the source/drain region are substantially identical processes. As such, the formation of the source/drain region comprising adsorbing SiCl₂ on the exposed surface of the fin-type active region, the SiCl₂ being produced by dissociation of the disilane compound, as claimed above, is presumed inherent to the process of CHU in view of BARBOSA, MPEP 2112 III.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of KOO “Selective epitaxial growth of stepwise SiGe:B at the recessed sources and drains: A growth kinetics and strain distribution study”, WEI (US 20150228755 A1), and HUANG.
Regarding Claim 16,
CHU discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
the source/drain region...includes a Si1-xGex layer, in which 0< x < 1, doped with a p-type dopant.
(Par. 27 teaches 238 may be p-type doped silicon germanium.)
CHU and/or BARBOSA do not disclose:
wherein: the forming of the source/drain region includes forming a first buffer layer, a second buffer layer, and a main body layer, which are sequentially stacked in a direction away from the fin-type active region,
the first buffer layer, the second buffer layer, and the main body layer each include a Si1-xGex layer, in which 0< x < 1, doped with a p-type dopant and have different germanium content ratios from each other,
and a ratio of a flow rate of the germanium element-containing gas to a flow rate of the disilane compound in the process gas during the forming of the main body layer is higher than a ratio of the flow rate of the germanium element-containing gas to the flow rate of the disilane compound in the process gas during the forming of the second buffer layer.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the formation of the source/drain region of CHU in view of BARBOSA to have limitations of this claim for the following reasons.
Step-wise growth of silicon germanium source/drain regions for similar devices—such as forming a first buffer layer, a second buffer layer, and a main body layer, as claimed—is known in the art to provide advantages in device performance, as evidenced by KOO Abstract & Conclusions.
Further, such step-wise grown layers of the source/drain region would be sequentially stacked in a direction away from the fin-type active region for CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of KOO, as the direction of said stacking occurs away from the surface upon which said layers are grown, and said source/drain region comprising said layers are grown on the fin-type active region for CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of KOO, as seen in CHU Fig. 11.
Further still, providing an increasing—and, thus, different—germanium content ratio in the p-type doped silicon germanium source/drain regions in a direction away from the fin-type active region—i.e. increasing the germanium content ratio from the first buffer layer to the second buffer layer to the main body layer—is known in the art to provide advantages in the device performance of similar devices, as evidenced by WEI Par 2, 3, & 14.
Further still, providing a ratio of a flow rate of the germanium element-containing gas to a flow rate of the disilane compound in the process gas during the forming of the main body layer that is higher than a ratio of the flow rate of the germanium element-containing gas to the flow rate of the disilane compound in the process gas during the forming of the second buffer layer, as claimed, is a means known in the art to provide the desired gradient in germanium content—i.e. increasing the germanium content ratio from the second buffer layer to the main body layer, as evidenced by HUANG Par. 37.
Claims 17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of HUANG.
Regarding Claim 17,
CHU and/or BARBOSA do not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
a flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas is determined such that a ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30 %.
However, BARBOSA does disclose that in 104, a ratio of germanium atoms to silicon and germanium atoms in the resulting silicon germanium layer may range from 0 % to 100 %, 20 % to 80 %, or 40 % to 60 %, BARBOSA Par. 31.
Further, CHU in view of BARBOSA discloses the claimed invention except for the flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas is determined such that the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30%. Further still, CHU in view of BARBOSA teaches the general condition of this claim, as “ratios of the silicon source gas and the germanium source gas can be varied in order to provide control of the elemental concentrations of the silicon, germanium, and dopant while growing [the silicon germanium layer]”—as evidenced by HUANG Par. 37—and said ratios are known in the art to be controlled by relative flow rates of such gasses. Further still, the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed ranges of BARBOSA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas such that the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas to at least 30 %, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation".
Regarding Claim 20,
CHU does not disclose:
The method as claimed in claim 19, wherein:
in the forming of the source/drain region, the process gas includes pentachlorodisilane, germane, hydrogen gas, and a boron dopant precursor, and at least the pentachlorodisilane, the germane, and the hydrogen gas of the process gas are simultaneously supplied onto the substrate, and a flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas, which are simultaneously supplied onto the substrate, is determined such that a ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30 %.
BARBOSA discloses:
in the forming of the source/drain region (Par. 26), the process gas includes pentachlorodisilane (106; Par. 45), germane (108; Par. 46), hydrogen gas (Par. 38), and a boron dopant precursor (110), and
at least the pentachlorodisilane, the germane, and the hydrogen gas of the process gas are simultaneously supplied onto the substrate (Par. 44; As previously stated for Claim 19),
BARBOSA does not disclose:
a flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas, which are simultaneously supplied onto the substrate, is determined such that a ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30 %.
Even so, BARBOSA does disclose that in 104, a ratio of germanium atoms to silicon and germanium atoms in the resulting silicon germanium layer may range from 0 % to 100 %, 20 % to 80 %, or 40 % to 60 %, BARBOSA Par. 31. Further, the limitation “the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas, which are simultaneously supplied onto the substrate” has already been satisfied for this claim.
Nonetheless, CHU in view of BARBOSA discloses the claimed invention except for the flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas is determined such that the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas is at least 30%. However, CHU in view of BARBOSA does teach the general condition of this claim, as “ratios of the silicon source gas and the germanium source gas can be varied in order to provide control of the elemental concentrations of the silicon, germanium, and dopant while growing [the silicon germanium layer]”—as evidenced by HUANG Par. 37—and said ratios are known in the art to be controlled by relative flow rates of such gasses. Further, the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed ranges of BARBOSA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the flow rate of each of the disilane compound and the germanium element-containing gas such that the ratio of a content of germanium atoms to a content of silicon atoms in the process gas to at least 30 %, since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation".
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of WEI.
Regarding Claim 18,
CHU discloses:
The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein:
the fin-type active region (210A/210B) includes a silicon film (208; Par. 15),
each of the insulating capping layer (218) and an insulating spacer of the insulating spacers (226) includes a nitrogen-containing insulating film,
(Par. 21 and Par. 23 teach 218 and 226, respectively, may include silicon nitride.)
the source/drain region (238) includes a Si1-xGex layer, in which 0 < x < 1, doped with a p-type dopant
(Par. 27 teaches 238 may be epitaxially grown, p-type doped, silicon germanium.)
CHU and/or BARBOSA do not disclose:
the source/drain region has an increasing germanium content ratio in a direction away from the fin-type active region in a vertical direction from a bottom surface of the recess.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the source/drain region of CHU in view of BARBOSA to have an increasing germanium content ratio in a direction away from the fin-type active region in a vertical direction from a bottom surface of the recess, as claimed, as providing such a gradient for the source/drain region is known in the art to provide a number of advantages, as evidenced by WEI Par. 2, 3, & 14. Further, the direction of said gradient is perpendicular to the surface or surfaces upon which the source/drain is grown. As the source/drain is grown on the fin-type active region and the bottom surface of the recess—as seen in CHU Fig. 11—the direction of said gradient for CHU in view of BARBOSA and in further view of WEI would be away from the fin-type active region in a vertical direction from a bottom surface of the recess.
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 S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights