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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim of commonly assigned U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/388,756 filed July 13, 2022.
The Examiner notes that claims in the instant application are evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis to determine if the claim is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. “If a claim in the nonprovisional application is not adequately supported by the written description and drawing(s) (if any) of the provisional application (as in New Railhead), that claim in the nonprovisional application is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the provisional application. If the filing date of the earlier provisional application is necessary, for example, in the case of an interference or to overcome a reference, care must be taken to ensure that the disclosure filed as the provisional application adequately provides (1) a written description of the subject matter of the claim(s) at issue in the later filed nonprovisional application, and (2) an enabling disclosure to permit one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in the later filed nonprovisional application without undue experimentation.” (MPEP 211.05(I)(A)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17, 2024 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: there are two commas between Si and Ge and the extra comma should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation within parentheses, “(the thickness of the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles can be the same or gradually decreased)” is indefinite because it is unclear if it is meant to further limit the preceding claim or is meant to restate the limitation in colloquial language. The phrase “can be the same or gradually decreased” is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations after the phrase “can be” are part of the claimed invention and the thickness of the reactive layer being the same contradicts the preceding limitation, “and the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased in the (n+1)th first cycle as compared to the nth first cycle.”)
Further regarding claim 14, the limitation “the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased” is indefinite because it is unclear what property of “the reactive layer” is decreased. For the purpose of this action, “the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased” will be interpreted to mean “a thickness of the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the thickness of the reactive layer" on page 29, line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent basis issue can be avoided by omitting the parenthetical and/or changing “the reactive layer” of page 29, line 13 to “a thickness of the reactive layer” as described above.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “and wherein the defects are dislocations, pits, compositional irregularities, disordered regions, misordered regions, or scratches.” The term “compositional irregularities” is indefinite because the scope of “compositional irregularities” and how it narrows the limitation of “defects” is unclear. For the purpose of this action, the claim will be interpreted to not further limit the term “defect.” The recitation of “disordered regions, misordered regions” is also indefinite because it is not clear if “disordered” and “misordered” refer to the same or different kinds of defects. For the purpose of this action, “disordered” and “misordered” will be interpreted to have the same meaning. Although the claim language appears in the specification, the metes and bounds of “compositional irregularities,” “disordered,” and “misordered” are unclear even when considering the language of the specification.
Claim 22 further recites the limitation “the processed surface comprises fewer defects as compared to the surface prior to processing compared to in a bulk of the substrate.” It is unclear what the bulk of the substrate is being compared to.
Dependent claims 2-20 are rejected at least on the same basis as the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanarik (US 2017/0069462 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Kanarik teaches:
A method for processing a surface (claim 1, “a method of etching and smoothening a substrate surface”), comprising:
(a) obtaining a substrate comprising an epitaxially grown semiconductor or an ordered substrate template for subsequent epitaxial growth of a semiconductor (para. 4 “In some embodiments, the substrate surface includes a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum gallium nitride, silicon, gallium nitride, tungsten, and cobalt,” para. 44 “Some materials may be epitaxial or amorphous”);
(b) reacting a surface of the semiconductor and/or a surface of a dielectric layer on the semiconductor (para. 37 “In operation 204, the substrate is exposed to a reactant with a plasma to modify a surface of the substrate.”),
with a reactant comprising a gas, a plasma, or a fluid, to form a reactive layer on the dielectric layer and/or the semiconductor (para. 37 “the substrate is exposed to a reactant with a plasma”),
wherein the reactive layer comprises a chemical compound including the reactant and elements of the dielectric layer or the semiconductor (para. 40 “ A plasma is ignited and chlorine plasma reacts with the substrate to form a modified layer on the surface of the substrate”, see Fig. 1C, para. 30 “The schematic in 172b shows that some chlorine is adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate as an example”);
and (c) processing (e.g., removing and/or chemically reducing) the reactive layer (para. 30 “In 172d, a removal gas argon is introduced with a directional plasma as indicated by the Ar.sup.+ plasma species and arrows, and ion bombardment is performed to remove the modified surface of the substrate.”),
wherein the processing at least smoothens, or controls defects at, the surface (claim 1 “A method of etching and smoothening a substrate surface”).
With respect to claim 2, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises reacting the reactive layer (chlorinated substrate as seen in 172B) with an agent (Ar+ plasma) that induces a re-arrangement of chemical bonds between constituents of the reactive layer (para. 46 “In operation 208, the substrate is exposed to an inert plasma to etch the modified surface and smoothen the substrate.”)
and wherein the re-arrangement removes at least part of the constituents of the reactive layer from the surface (para. 47 “In various embodiments, this operation may etch a few monolayers of material and smoothen the surface of the material.”, see Fig. 1C, step 172e).
With respect to claim 3, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the reacting comprises projecting the agent onto the surface with an energy:
below that required for physical sputtering of the surface using the agent so that the material is not ejected from the substrate by a physical sputtering process,
and sufficient to act as a catalyst for the re-arrangement. (claim 1, “and exposing the modified layer to an inert gas and igniting a second plasma at a bias power and for a duration sufficient to remove the modified layer without sputtering,”)
With respect to claim 4, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the agent comprises ions. (para. 54 “For example, in some embodiments, ions may be generated such that ions are directed towards a substrate at an angle during a removal operation described herein to etch and smoothen vertical sidewalls” Fig. 1C shows Ar+ ions in the agent)
With respect to claim 5, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises accelerating ions onto the surface and selecting an angle of incidence of the ions with respect to a surface normal so as to smoothen or remove the defects from the surface. (para. 54 “For example, in some embodiments, ions may be generated such that ions are directed towards a substrate at an angle during a removal operation described herein to etch and smoothen vertical sidewalls.”)
With respect to claim 6, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises accelerating ions onto the surface and at least one of:
selecting a temperature of the processing (para. 65 “The temperature will depend on the process operation and specific recipe.”),
selecting an angle of incidence of the processing (para. 54 “For example, in some embodiments, ions may be generated such that ions are directed towards a substrate at an angle during a removal operation described herein to etch and smoothen vertical sidewalls.”),
selecting a composition of the reactant (para. 6 “In various embodiments, the reactant is a halogen-containing reactant. In various embodiments, the reactant is a boron-containing halide. In some embodiments, the reactant is a combination of chlorine and boron trichloride.),
or selecting an angle of incidence of the ions onto the surface (para. 54 “For example, in some embodiments, ions may be generated such that ions are directed towards a substrate at an angle during a removal operation described herein to etch and smoothen vertical sidewalls.”),
and so as to control anisotropy or isotropy of removal of the reactive layer (para. 54 “Sidewalls may be smoothened in some embodiments due to a glancing angle ion energy that allows for smoothening”).
With respect to claim 8, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the formation of the reactive layer comprises and at least one of:
selecting a temperature of the processing (para. 65 “The temperature will depend on the process operation and specific recipe.”),
or selecting a composition of the reactant (para. 37 “The reactant may be a halogen-containing reactant, or oxygen. In some embodiments, a boron-containing halide reactant may be used. Any combination of these reactants may be used during operation 204”),
so as to control anisotropy or isotropy of formation of the reactive layer. (para. 37 “In various embodiments, using a boron-containing halide reactant may yield smoother films than films exposed to a non-boron-containing halide reactant during operation 204. For example, BCl.sub.3 may improve smoothness by removing oxidation that may otherwise cause micromasking during etching.”).
With respect to claim 9, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processing comprises chemical sputtering or wet etching with a liquid wet etchant.
Para. 47 describes the process of processing the surface:
“During this operation a low bias is applied. The bias power depends on the chemistry of the inert gas, the plasma conditions for generating the activated gas, and the material being etched and smoothened during this operation. In various embodiments, depending on these factors, the range of bias levels suitable for performing disclosed embodiments may be referred to as a “window.” A bias window suitable for disclosed embodiments may be determined empirically and is selected so as not to physically sputter the activated gas onto the material to be etched and smoothened. This operation is performed to maintain the self-limiting nature of an ALE process. As such, the bias power used is such that the modified layer on the material may be removed without physically sputtering the material underneath it. In various embodiments, this operation may etch a few monolayers of material and smoothen the surface of the material.”
Although Kanarik does not use the term “chemical sputtering” to describe the process, the ordinary artisan would understand that chemical sputtering is a process in which chemical reactions modify a surface to reduce binding energy so that the modified layer is sputtered from the surface at a threshold energy too low to physically sputter the underlying material. Therefore, the Examiner determines that the description in para. 47 meets the definition of chemical sputtering.
With respect to claim 10, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the reactive layer comprises valleys having sidewalls and the processing etches the valleys laterally through the sidewalls so as to planarize the surface and remove or connect the valleys. (para. 54 “Sidewalls may be smoothened in some embodiments due to a glancing angle ion energy that allows for smoothening. For example, in some embodiments, ions may be generated such that ions are directed towards a substrate at an angle during a removal operation described herein to etch and smoothen vertical sidewalls.”)
With respect to claim 11, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the valleys have a height and width in a range of 1-1000 nm (para. 44 “disclosed embodiments can be used to smoothen films having a roughness of about 100 nm.”)
With respect to claim 12, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the reactant comprises at least one of
a halogen that halogenates the surface (para. 37, the reactant may be a halogen-containing reactant such as chlorine),
a halogen combined with carbon,
a mixture of halogens,
a sulphide so as to form the reactive layer comprising a sulphide,
hydrogen or a hydride so as to form the reactive layer comprising a hydride,
a nitride or nitrogen so as to form the reactive layer comprising a nitride,
or oxygen or an oxide so as to form the reactive layer comprising an oxide (para. 37, the reactant may be oxygen).
With respect to claim 13, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the reactive layer comprises chlorinated silicon (see Fig. 1c, para. 30 “In 172a, a silicon substrate is provided, which includes many metal atoms. In 172b, reactant gas chlorine is introduced to the substrate which modifies the surface of the substrate.”),
the reactant comprises chlorine, bromine, or boron trichloride (para. 37 “In some embodiments, operation 204 involves exposing the substrate to chlorine and boron trichloride (Cl.sub.2/BCl.sub.3 combination).”),
and the agent comprises argon, neon, krypton, or helium ions (para. 46 “In operation 208, the substrate is exposed to an inert plasma to etch the modified surface and smoothen the substrate. Example inert gases that may be used include argon, xenon, neon.”).
With respect to claim 19, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the semiconductor comprises:
silicon (para. 4 “the substrate surface includes a material selected from the group consisting of aluminum gallium nitride, silicon, gallium nitride, tungsten, and cobalt”) or a compound that principally contains elements from group III and group V from the periodic table (a III-V material) or a compound that principally contains elements from group II and group VI of the periodic table (II-VI material), Si, Ge, or a superlattice of any of these materials, and/or the semiconductor is doped.
With respect to claim 21, Kanarik teaches:
An apparatus for etching a substrate (para. 59 “inductively coupled plasma integrated etching and deposition apparatus 400 appropriate for implementing certain embodiments herein”), comprising:
one or more reactor tools (para. 61 “Process and inert gases (e.g. halogen-containing gas, boron-containing halide gas, BCl.sub.3, Cl.sub.2, Ar, Xe, Ne, He, etc.) may be flowed into the process chamber through one or more main gas flow inlets 460 positioned in the upper sub-chamber 402 and/or through one or more side gas flow inlets 470”, para. 59 “The chuck 417 is configured to receive and hold a semiconductor wafer 419 upon which the etching and smoothening processes are performed.”) reacting a reactant with a surface of a dielectric layer or semiconductor so as to form a reactive layer on the dielectric layer or the semiconductor (see Fig. 1C),
wherein the reactant comprises a gas or plasma (e.g. halogen-containing gas, boron-containing halide gas, BCl.sub.3, Cl.sub.2, Ar, Xe, Ne, He, etc.),
wherein the reactive layer comprises a chemical compound including the reactant and elements of the dielectric layer or the semiconductor (para. 40 “A plasma is ignited and chlorine plasma reacts with the substrate to form a modified layer on the surface of the substrate”, see Fig. 1C, para. 30 “The schematic in 172b shows that some chlorine is adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate as an example”);
and one or more tools outputting a treatment or processing agent for processing the reactive layers so as to at least smoothen, or control defects at, the surface. (para. 59 “The chuck 417 is configured to receive and hold a semiconductor wafer 419 upon which the etching and smoothening processes are performed.” The processing agent is the plasma including Ar, Xe, Ne, or He flowed into the gas chamber through gas flow inlets 460)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pahlovy (Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 2011).
The Examiner notes that claim 22 directs to a product claim. The limitation “wherein: the processed surface comprises fewer defects as compared to the surface prior to processing compared to in a bulk of the substrate,” directs to a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113). Therefore, limitations that cite comparisons to the substrate at intermediate steps do not hold patentable weight. Further, the limitations specifying that the material is an “epitaxial” material refers to a growth process and any material that could be grown epitaxially will be considered to meet the product-by-process limitation of “epitaxial material.”
With respect to claim 22, Pahlovy teaches:
a processed surface of an epitaxial material comprising a semiconductor, wherein: the processed surface comprises fewer defects as compared to the surface prior to processing compared to in a bulk of the substrate (page 207, column 2, para. 2 “a smoothing behavior of Si wafer substrate caused by 500 eV Ar+ ion bombardment is observed”),
and the processed surface has a root mean square surface roughness of less than 1 nanometer over an entirety of the surface area of the wafer (Fig. 2, abstract “Result shows that the rough surface (R = 0.12 nm rms) becomes smooth (R = 0.068 nm rms) and the smooth surface (R = 0.038 nm rms) becomes rough (R = 0.068 nm rms) due to low energy Ar+ ion beam sputtering process and both finally saturates at 0.068 nm rms”),
and the epitaxial layer is single crystalline (pg. 206, col. 2, Section 2.1 Sample Preparation “The cleaved atomically flat and smooth plane of single crystal Si wafer was obtained by manually cutting vertically against orientation flat of a Si(1 0 0) wafer.”),
and wherein the defects are dislocations, pits, compositional irregularities, disordered regions, misordered regions, or scratches (the defect, or “roughness” as described in Fig. 2 are equivalent to pits).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik (US 2017/0069462 A1) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Berry (Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A).
With respect to claim 7, Kanarik teaches all limitations of claim 6 upon which claim 7 depends. Kanarik fails to teach:
wherein the processing comprises removing the reactive layer along a direction having a larger component parallel to the surface of the reactive layer,
as compared to the component normal to the surface.
Berry teaches in Fig. 8:
wherein the processing comprises removing the reactive layer along a direction having a larger component parallel to the surface of the reactive layer (Section III(C) “The width of the ALE window is reduced from 25 eV at normal incidence to about 10 eV at 70° from the normal. The lower limit shifts from 25 eV to about 18 eV.”),
as compared to the component normal to the surface (Section III(C) The consequence of the shift of the ALE window toward lower energies for non-normal incidence is that ions scattered from the mask can still etch the sidewall of a feature even if they lose several eV of kinetic energy in the collision.”)
Kanarik discloses the claimed invention except for processing removing the reactive layer along a direction with a larger component parallel than perpendicular. Berry teaches that it is known to use an angle of incidence of the processing with a larger parallel component than perpendicular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process at an angle as taught by Berry, since Berry states at section III(C) that such a modification would lower the energy threshold of the bonds and therefore increase sputtering yields. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik (US 2017/0069462 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Greer (US 2021/0313185 A1).
The Examiner notes that Greer shares an inventor and applicant with the instant application. The publication date of Greer is within a year of the filing date of the provisional application No. 63/388,758 that the instant application claims the benefit of priority to and therefore a possible 102(b)(1)(A) grace period exception depends on if the subject matter of claim 14 is supported by the written description of the provisional application. Upon reviewing the provisional application the Examiner determines that the limitation “the cycles include one or more first cycles and a second cycle subsequent to the first cycle” has support in the provisional application, however the limitations “the second cycle forms the reactive layer that is thinner as compared to the reactive layer formed in the first cycles, so that the processing in the second cycle processes the reactive layer with a finer resolution as compared to the etching in one or more the first cycles, and the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased in the (n+1)th first cycle as compared to the nth first cycle (the thickness of the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles can be the same or gradually decreased)” do not have support in the provisional application.
With respect to claim 14, Kanarik teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 14 depends. Kanarik further teaches:
further comprising repeating steps (b) and (c) so as to perform a plurality of etching cycles each comprising the step (b) and the step (c), wherein:
the cycles include one or more first cycles and a second cycle subsequent to the first cycle, (para. 53 “In various embodiments, the modification and removal operations may be repeated in cycles, such as about 1 to about 30 cycles, or about 1 to about 20 cycles. Any suitable number of ALE cycles may be included to etch a desired amount of film.”)
Kanarik fails to teach:
the second cycle forms the reactive layer that is thinner as compared to the reactive layer formed in the first cycles,
so that the processing in the second cycle processes the reactive layer with a finer resolution as compared to the etching in one or more the first cycles, and the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased in the (n+1)th first cycle as compared to the nth first cycle (the thickness of the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles can be the same or gradually decreased).
Greer teaches:
the second cycle forms the reactive layer that is thinner as compared to the reactive layer formed in the first cycles,
so that the processing in the second cycle processes the reactive layer with a finer resolution as compared to the etching in one or more the first cycles, and the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles is incrementally decreased in the (n+1)th first cycle as compared to the nth first cycle (the thickness of the reactive layer in one or more of the first cycles can be the same or gradually decreased). (para. 69 “the etching cycles include a first cycle and a second cycle subsequent to the first cycle, wherein the second cycle optionally forms the reactive layer that is thinner as compared to the reactive layer formed in the first cycle, so that the wet etching in the second cycle (or dry etching in second cycle) etches the reactive layer with a finer resolution as compared to the wet etching in the first cycle. Further cycles can also be tailored to form thinner and thinner reaction layers.”)
Kanarik discloses the claimed invention except for the decreasing thickness of the reactive layer in additional cycles. Greer discloses that it is known in the art to provide a progressively thinner reactive layer each cycle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Kanarik with the progressively thinner reactive layers of Greer, in order to finely tune the amount of substrate removed for the final product. See MPEP 2144.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik (US 2017/0069462 A1) and Greer (US 2021/0313185 A1) as applied to claim 14 above and further in view of Bruce (US 2017/0287717 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Kanarik/Greer teaches all limitations of claim 14 upon which claim 15 depends. Kanarik/Greer fails to teach:
where the final cycle terminates without removal of the reactive layer.
Bruce teaches in Fig. 3:
where the final cycle terminates without removal of the reactive layer. (after the dry etching loop is repeated in step 200 a final interface layer/capping layer 312 is deposited)
Kanarik/Greer discloses the claimed invention except for the final cycle terminating without removal of the reactive layer. Bruce teaches that it is known to deposit a final capping layer that is not etched. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanarik/Greer as taught by Bruce, since Bruce states in para. 33 that such a modification would prepare the substrate for further ex-situ processing. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 16, Bruce further teaches:
the composition and/or thickness of the final reactive layer which remains is different than the reactive layer before it which was at least partially removed,
and/or the composition and/or thickness of the final reactive layer is chosen to make the semiconductor substrate or layer be more amenable to subsequent processing, (para. 33 “the fabrication process 300 can add a cap layer 312 on the interface surface of the substrate 304 (e.g. for further ex-situ processing)”)
and/or the composition and/or thickness of the final reactive layer is chosen to enhance the electrical or optical properties of the final device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kanarik/Greer in view of Bruce as explained above.
With respect to claim 17,
The limitation “where the electrical property improved is at least one of carrier mobility or contact resistance” depends on an alternative limitation in claim 16 due to the “and/or” clauses in claim 16. The limitations of claim 16, which are incorporated into claim 17, are met as long as only one of the alternatives is met. The limitation of claim 17 narrows a limitation of claim 16 that did not need to be met to teach claim 16, and therefore “where the electrical property improved is at least one of carrier mobility or contact resistance” also need not be met for claim 17 to be taught. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are taught by Kanarik in view of Greer and Bruce as explained above.
With respect to claim 18, Bruce further teaches: comprising forming a structure wherein:
the final reactive layer acts as passivation to reduce or prevent change in air,
and/or the final reactive layer comprises a halogen, nitrogen, carbon, sulphur, or hydrogen (Fig. 3 states that layer 312 may be a final interface layer. Fig. 3 teaches that the interface layers may be nitride and therefore comprise nitrogen as seen in incoming IL 306 and sacrificial IL 310),
and/or the final reactive layer reduces or prevents oxidation of the semiconductor,
and/or the final reactive layer is incorporated into the final device,
and/or the final reactive layer is made to be more amenable to removal in situ prior to a subsequent epitaxial growth step which results in a higher quality epitaxial growth than would have been achieved without the final reactive layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kanarik/Greer in view of Bruce as explained above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanarik (US 2017/0069462 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ramaswamy (US 2009/0162996 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Kanarik teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 20 depends. Kanarik fails to teach:
wherein the processing controls a dopant profile at the surface.
Ramaswamy teaches:
wherein the processing controls a dopant profile at the surface (abstract “A reactive gas mixture is provided to the process chamber, with optional plasma, to remove excess dopant adsorbed on the surface and high-concentration dopant near the surface by reacting with the dopant to form volatile compounds.”)
Kanarik discloses the claimed invention except for the use of the processing for doping control. Ramaswamy teaches that it is known to control doping at the surface of a substrate through an etching process of reacting dopants with volatile compounds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Kanarik as taught by Ramaswamy, since Ramaswamy states in para. 8 that such a modification would help remove volatile and highly concentrated dopants from the surface that would react with the environment. See MPEP 2144.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897