DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 25-43 in the reply filed on 12/21/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 27, 31, 33, and 39 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/21/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 29, 32, 34-36, 40, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims include that the method is “arranged” to carry out a step. The claims are drawn to a method – the suggestion that it is arranged to do something draws into question whether it is carried out or merely intended.
For example, claim 25 requires “depositing a separation layer” as step a. Claim 29 requires that it is “arranged to deposit…” but would be more clearly worded without the “is arranged” verbiage.
Claim Interpretation
The separation layer is not particularly defined as having any particular structure or composition. The mixture material source layer is also not limited other than requiring a dopant.
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 25, 26, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (WO2020/0197864).
Kumar teaches a method for doping a semiconductor, comprising, as per Fig. 1 and [0015-21]:
- placing a semiconductor substrate in a deposition tool (claim 6),
a) depositing a separation layer, see formation of diffusion barrier layer 108,
b) depositing a mixture material layer on the separation layer – see depositing doped layer, 112, which includes one or more dopants,
c) annealing the substrate with the multiple layers, see step 120, wherein the dopant goes into the separation layer and the substrate [0024].
Regarding claims 26 and 28, the separation layer is formed by ALD by applying a first silicon precursor and second oxidizing precursor [0017-18].
Regarding claim 30, the mixture layers are deposited via ALD [0021-22].
Claims 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swaminathan (2013/0040447).
Swaminathan teaches doping a semiconductor, comprising [0054-56]:
- placing a semiconductor substrate in a deposition tool (chamber),
a) depositing a separation layer, see formation of initial SiO/SiO2 layer, and
b) depositing a mixture material layer on the separation layer – see depositing doped layers intermittently between multiple/any number of undoped layers, and
c) annealing to drive the dopant into the layers and the substrate [0082], see also claims 1-17 and Figs. 3, 4 and 6.
Regarding claims 26 and 28, the separation layer is formed by ALD by applying a first silicon precursor and second oxidizing precursor [0055, 0057-59].
Regarding claim 30, the mixture layers are deposited via ALD [0055-56].
Regarding claims 32 and 34, the combination of a silicon precursor and oxidation gas and dopant/oxidant is taught as per [0056-62] and [0070-78], boron is exemplified as a dopant (the doping step is controlled as a matter of the alternation of the silicon and doping steps and claim 34 does not preclude additional step).
Regarding claims 37, 38 and 40, wherein the diffusion drain layer is not limited, the teachings include any number of layers deposited and therefore include the claimed diffusion drain layer before the annealing step as any of the noted undoped or doped layers with silicon and oxidant, which as noted are performed by ALD.
Regarding claim 42, the anneal temperature is between 850-1000C which is sufficiently within claimed range to anticipate said range.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar.
Kumar teaches the separation layer by ALD as above, and is silent on the thickness of the separation layer, but generally teaches control of the thickness [0026]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the separation layer of any thickness, such as 0.5-15nm as Kumar teaches that the thickness is controllable. It is further noted that as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a change of size/dimension is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Claims 29, 35, 36 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan.
Regarding claims 29, 35 and 41, Kumar teaches the separation layer by ALD as above, and is silent on the thickness of the separation and diffusion layers, but generally teaches control of the thickness [0026]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the separation layer of any thickness, such as 0.5-15nm as Kumar teaches that the thickness is controllable. It is further noted that as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a change of size/dimension is obvious without a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 36, the teachings are silent on the atomic ratio of dopant, but the teachings generally include dopant plus oxide films and/or doped silicate films [0036-38] and also teach that the concentration is a result effective variable, therefore it would have been obvious to control the dopant concentration as claimed as a matter of forming the desired product.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan in view of Consiglio (2016/0260611).
The teachings of Swaminathan are described above, and teach forming a doped region but are silent on an etch. Consiglio teaches that in forming a dopant layer and then annealing, it is useful to perform an etch in order to form a usable structure [0035]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the etch step of Consiglio to the method of Swaminathan as the teachings include the formation of a device (background) and Consiglio teaches that the etch is useful for a finishing step on the doped film (understood as integration).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-272-5166. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712