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 .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on November 19, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Delabie et al. (US 2014/0239461, hereinafter Delabie) in view of Niwa et al. (US 5,422,306; hereinafter Niwa).
Regarding claim 5, Delabie discloses for a method for producing an epitaxial wafer forming a single crystal silicon layer on a single crystal silicon wafer (Fig. 1) comprising that
a step of removing native oxide film on surface of the single crystal silicon wafer with hydrofluoric acid, because “A typical operation before high-k deposition is therefore the removal of this native oxide layer. For Si, this is typically performed by a cleaning step in a HF solution” (emphasis added, [0004]) and Delabie uses Si(100) substrate ([0081]), therefore, Si(100) substrate corresponds to the single crystal silicon wafer in the claimed invention,
a step of forming an oxygen atomic layer (oxygen monolayer, Title, Abstract, [0015]) on the surface of the single crystal silicon wafer (surface of Si(100) substrate, [0081], Fig. 1) from which the native oxide film has been removed ([0004]), because “the oxygen monolayer is a monolayer comprising oxygen” ([0020]),
a step of epitaxially growing the single crystal silicon layer (crystalline epitaxial Si region, Fig. 18, [0108]) by vapor phase growth method on the surface of the single crystal silicon wafer (surface of Si(100) substrate, [0081], Fig. 1) on which the oxygen atomic layer (oxygen monolayer, [0015]) is formed, because “the step of providing a semi-conducting layer directly on top of the monolayer may further include reacting the oxygen monolayer with a precursor to the semi-conductor via Low Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition, thereby providing an epitaxial semiconductor layer thereon” (emphasis added, [0032]),
wherein the plane concentration of oxygen in the oxygen atomic layer is 1x1015 atoms/cm2 or less, because Delabie discloses “the oxygen monolayer can be fractional or complete” ([0014]) and further discloses that “as used herein and unless provided otherwise, the term oxygen monolayer refers to a layer of oxygen atoms chemically linked to a substrate surface and covering the substrate with a number of oxygen atoms corresponding to between at least half of the minimum number of atoms theoretically required to cover the substrate surface entirely and at most one and a half times this minimum number. In the example of Si(100) as a substrate, this corresponds to from between about 3.39*1014 to 1.02*1015 at/cm2 as determined by Si capped SIMS. In this example, 3.39*1014 at/cm2 corresponds to exactly half a monolayer, 6.78*1014 at/cm2 corresponds to exactly one monolayer, and 1.02*1015 at/cm2 corresponds to 1.5 monolayers” (emphasis added, [0018]), therefore, the number of oxygen atoms corresponding to the exactly half or one of monolayer is less than 1x1015 atoms/cm2.
Delabie does not explicitly disclose that the oxygen atomic layer is formed by rinsing the single crystal silicon layer with pure water and leaving the single crystal silicon wafer in an atmosphere containing oxygen.
However, Niwa discloses for a formation mechanism of the monoatomic layer of the absorbed oxygen molecules 15 to form a native oxide layer 16 (Fig. 1(c), Col. 4, lines 30-33), and because Applicant does not specifically claim whether the recited “oxygen atomic layer” has a crystalline structure or amorphous structure, what thickness it has, and/or what bonding mechanism exists at an interface between the single crystal silicon and the oxygen atomic layer, it is well-known in the semiconductor processing art that when a clean silicon surface is rinsed with deionized water (i.e., pure water) and subsequently exposed to ambient air or oxygen-containing atmosphere, a native oxide layer spontaneously forms on the silicon surface due to reactions with oxygen and moisture in the ambient environment, as evidenced by Niwa, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that such native oxide growth is initiated as an oxygen atomic or sub-monolayer on the silicon surface and continues to grow to a thickness on the order of 1-2 nm over time at room temperature. Therefore, the formation of an oxygen atomic layer on a silicon substrate by rinsing with water and exposing the substrate to oxygen represents an expected result of conventional wafer cleaning procedures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an oxygen atomic layer on a single crystal silicon wafer by rinsing the wafer with pure water and leaving the wafer in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, since native oxide formation under such conditions was a well-known surface phenomenon in semiconducting manufacturing.
Regarding claim 9, Delabie further discloses for the method for producing an epitaxial wafer according to claim 5 that the step of forming the oxygen atomic layer (oxygen monolayer, [0111]) and the step of epitaxially growing the single crystal silicon (epitaxial Si layer, [0111]) are alternately performed a plurality of times, because “The cycle oxygen monolayer deposition/SiH4 (10 sccm)/delay/SiH4 (75 ccm) is repeated four times for a total of five cycles, thereby producing a superlattice” ([0111]), therefore, the cycle disclosed by Delabie corresponds to the claimed limitation “alternately performed a plurality of times”.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Delabie et al. (US 2014/0239461, hereinafter Delabie) in view of Niwa et al. (US 5,422,306; hereinafter Niwa), and further in view of Mizushima et al. (US 2002/0034864, hereinafter Mizushima). The teaching of Delabie in view of Niwa are discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Delabie in view of Niwa does not explicitly disclose that in the step of epitaxially growing the single crystal silicon, the epitaxial growth is performed at a temperature of 450 °C or more and 800 °C or less.
However, Mizushima discloses for a high-quality silicon epitaxial single crystal layer that “a silicon epitaxial single crystal layer formed by depositing amorphous silicon layer at 550 °C” ([0074]) and “the silicon epitaxial single crystal layer formed by performing heat treatment at 700 °C” ([0086]), therefore, the growth temperature by Mizushima overlaps with the temperature range in the claimed invention. Furthermore, Mizushima recognizes that the growth temperature impacts an epitaxial growth of silicon layer. The temperature is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the growth temperature as Mizushima has identified the temperature as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a growth temperature of 450 °C or more and 800 °C or less, in order to achieve the desired quality of epitaxially grown silicon layer, as taught by Mizushima. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed temperature is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed temperature).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815