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)).
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed April 17, 2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 11, and 13-22 are amended. Claims 23-25 are newly added. The Examiner notes that claims 1-25 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities: “and wherein the” at end of claim is not followed by a limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the processing controls a dopant profile at the surface to increase doping at the surface or to create a low-high- low dopant profile beneath the surface.”
Although the claim language appears on page 11, lines 14-16 of the written description, the written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification (MPEP 2163.03(V)).
Factors for determining whether a claim is enabled include the breadth of the claims, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the existence of working examples, and the quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention based on the content of the disclosure. The claim directs to broad subject matter that would read on a wide variety of semiconductors, dielectrics, dopants, and reactants. The written description teaches a general discussion of process conditions that can be adjusted to control dopant and/or defect profiles but lacks sufficient direction for the ordinary artisan to practice the invention as claimed, requiring undue experimentation to determine process conditions. The written description recites “A dopant species like Zn which has a volatile chloride, for example, would be selectively removed as compared to the Indium in InP since InCl3 is much less volatile than ZnCl2” but does not give examples of doping chemistries or detailed process steps for a process in which doping is increased at the surface or low-high-low dopant profiles are created beneath the surface as claimed and does not teach what temperatures, angles, reactants, dopants, or semiconductor materials are used to meet the limitation. In light of the scope of the written description and the factors discussed above, claim 20 is found to not be enabled.
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, 21, and 23 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 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.”),
so as to smoothen the surface and control defects at the surface (claim 1 “A method of etching and smoothening a substrate surface”).
(i) comprises isotropic removal of the reactive layer across the substrate, and/or
(ii) comprises anisotropic removal of the reactive layer so that the ratio of the vertical etch rate and the horizontal etch rate can be modified (para. [0054] “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 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 at 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 teaches:
wherein the processing comprises accelerating ions onto the surface under conditions selected to control anisotropy or isotropy of removal of the reactive layer, wherein the conditions comprise a temperature of the processing (para. 65 “The temperature will depend on the process operation and specific recipe.”), an angle of incidence of the processing, a composition of the reactant (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.”), or 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.”)
With respect to claim 8, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein comprising targeting an anisotropy or isotropy of the reactive layer by 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 “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 and reduce 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)
With respect to claim 23, Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processed surface after processing the reactive layer comprises a processed epitaxial material (para. 44 “Some materials may be epitaxial”) comprising a semiconductor (para. 34 “materials include aluminum gallium nitride, silicon, gallium nitride”), wherein: the processed surface comprises fewer defects as compared to the surface prior to processing (see Fig. 1B, surface 101a before processing and 101b after processing) and compared to in a bulk of the substrate (processing removes defects at surface but does not have an effect on defects within the bulk of the substrate 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 (para. [0078] “post-ALE roughness as shown in FIG. 6B of 0.4 nm RMS “), and the epitaxial layer is single crystalline, and wherein the defects are dislocations, pits, disordered regions, misordered regions, or scratches.
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 a thickness of 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
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 a thickness of 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.(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:
wherein the final cycle terminates without removal of the reactive layer to form a final reactive layer.
Bruce teaches in Fig. 3:
wherein the final cycle terminates without removal of the reactive layer to form a final reactive layer. (after the dry etching loop is repeated in step 200 a final interface layer/capping layer 312, contact 314, or gate dielectric 318 is deposited 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 (the final reactive layer may be a conductive contact 314 or a gate dielectric 318),
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,
wherein the substrate with the final reactive layer is characterized by an electrical property, wherein the electrical property is improved compared to the obtained substrate, and wherein the electrical property is at least one of carrier mobility or contact resistance (final reactive layer may be contact 314)
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 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 a 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 and as 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 (the single crystal of Pahlovy, while not explicitly referred to as an epitaxial material, is a single crystal material that is indistinguishable from an epitaxial single crystal material. The Examiner considers “epitaxial” to be a product by process claim that may be satisfied by any crystalline material that could have been grown epitaxially) comprising a semiconductor, wherein: the processed surface comprises fewer defects as compared to the surface prior to processing and as 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, disordered regions, or scratches (the defect, or “roughness” as described in Fig. 2 are equivalent to pits).
Pahlovy teaches that the processing is done on a cleaved plane of a wafer, not on a substrate. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is known in the art for single crystal layers to be grown epitaxially and processed on a substrate. It would be obvious to carry out the plasma bombardment of Pahlovy on an epitaxial material on a substrate for the purpose of integrating the epitaxial material into a device.
Claim 24 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 Bruce (US 2017/0287717 A1).
With respect to claim 24, Kanarik teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 24 depends. Kanarik further teaches:
wherein the processing reduces the defects at the surface (see Fig. 1B)
Kanarik fails to teach:
and wherein the method further comprises providing the surface for the subsequent epitaxial growth on the surface after processing the reactive layer.
Bruce teaches:
and wherein the method further comprises providing the surface for the subsequent epitaxial growth on the surface after processing the reactive layer (para. [0020] “Use of such a method for surface preparation can take advantage of its self-limiting quality for a high degree of control preventing damage in a sensitive channel or contact. The method can also take advantage of its selectivity for stopping on the semiconductor layer. Furthermore, the method can be combined with subsequent in-situ interlayer formation, dielectric gate stack deposition, metal contact formation, or epi-regrowth”).
Kanarik discloses the claimed invention except for the providing the surface for subsequent epitaxial growth. Bruce teaches that it is known to epitaxially grown material on the surface after processing. 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 as taught by Bruce, since Bruce states at para. [0020] that such a modification would allow for the growth of rasied source/drains with a good interface. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 25 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 Constantine (Applied Physics Letters, 1992).
With respect to claim 25, Kanarik teaches all limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 25 depends. Kanarik fails to teach:
wherein the processing matches or equalizes etch rates of the constituent elements of the reactive layer so as to reduce the defects at the surface.
Constantine teaches:
wherein the processing matches or equalizes etch rates of the constituent elements of the reactive layer so as to reduce the defects at the surface (pg. 2900 discusses that P enrichment of etching InP controlled by adjusting the chemistry based on the volatility of the etch products. Conditions of the etch are adjusted to eliminate the undercut and equalize the etch rates and ensure that P is not enriched.)
Kanarik discloses the claimed invention except for matching the etch rates of the constituent elements of the reactive layer. Constantine teaches that it is known to match etch rates of constituent elements during etching. 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 as taught by Constantine, since Constantine states on page 2900, col. 2 that such a modification would allow for a higher etch rate and control the anisotropy and smoothness of the etching process. See MPEP 2144.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Prior art teaches the amended claim limitations as described above.
With respect to claim 7, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine Kanarik and Berry because Kanarik avoids physical sputtering. The Examiner notes that both Kanarik and Berry teach methods related to directional atomic layer etching, and Berry teaches ways that principles of sputtering theory may be applied to directional atomic layer etching. Therefore, the argument that Kanarik avoids physical sputtering is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 21, Applicant argues that Kanarik fails to describe tools for outputting treatment. Claim 21 does not include details about the tools that distinguish over Kanarik, and apparatus in Fig. 4 of Kanarik is able to perform all processes recited in claim 21.
With respect to claim 22, Applicant argues that Pahlovy describes a bulk Si wafer, not an epitaxial material. As explained above, because an Si wafer may be formed epitaxially, the recitation of “an epitaxial material” does not distinguish over prior art because “epitaxial” refers to how the material was formed, not what the material is. There is no implied structure of an epitaxial material and the Examiner determines that any crystalline material that could be formed epitaxially reads on the limitation of claim 22 because claim 22 directs to a product, not a process. Applicant further argues that Pahlovy does not discuss defect generation and therefore does not describe the reduction of defects at the surface, however, the Examiner notes that the written description describes defects as including “dislocations, pits, compositional irregularities, disordered regions, misordered regions, or scratches” and considers the smoothening taught by Pahlovy to mean that defects are reduced because the roughness of the surface that is reduced includes these defects.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights