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 the amendment filed on 01/05/26. Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 26 and 33-37 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.
In claim 26, lines 1-2, it is unclear how “the undoped layer” contain a second dopant that is different than the first dopant when the first dopant is in the “first doped layer” as defined in claim 21.
In claim 33, lines 5-6, it is unclear about the “respective first layers” as it relates to the sandwiching of the respective boosting layers and the respective first layers. Specifically, in lines 3-6, the claim states that the epitaxially growing of the first doped layers followed by epitaxially growing respective boosting layers imply that the first layers are repeated and then the boosting layers are repeated after the forming of the first layers, not that the films are alternating with each other to create a sandwiching between the first layers.
For purpose of examination on the merits the examiner will view the undoped layer as just an undoped layer. In addition, that the boosting layer are sandwiched between a first doped layer and a second doped layer.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US PGPub 2015/0349090, hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Chen discloses the semiconductor method as claimed. See figures 1-7 and corresponding text, where Chen teaches, claim 21, a method, comprising:
(a) forming a recess (23) in a substrate (21) (figure 3; [0023-0024]);
(b) epitaxially growing a doped layer (27) in the recess (23), the doped layer (27) being doped with first dopant (figure 4; [0026], [0029]);
(c) epitaxially growing an undoped layer (29) on the doped layer (27), the undoped layer (29) having vacancy sites within its structure ([0004], prevent out-diffusion into the channel region, [0030], further increases the short channel effect (SCE)), the vacancy sites providing respective bonding locations for dopants in a subsequently formed doped layer (figure 4; [0030]);
(d) epitaxially growing another doped layer (35) on the undoped layer (29) wherein dopants in the another doped layer (35) bond to respective vacancy sites in the undoped layer (29); and
repeating steps (b, (c), and (d) until the recess (23) has been filled to a predefined extent, wherein each undoped layer (29) is sandwiched between two doped layers (27, 35) (figure 4; [0037], in-situ epitaxy boron doped where the undoped layer is formed between the lightly doped second layer and third doped layer).
Chen teaches, claim 22, wherein steps (b), (c), and (d) are repeated until the recess is completely filled (figure 4; [0037], multiple layers).
Chen teaches, claim 23, wherein steps (b), (c), and (d) are repeated until the recess is partially filled and an upper portion of the recess remains unfilled, and further comprising:
epitaxially growing an additional doped layer to fill the upper portion of the recess (figure 5; [0033], [0039]).
Chen teaches, claim 24, wherein the doped layer, the another doped layer, and the additional doped layer comprise the same material and the same dopant (figure 5; [0033], [0039]).
Chen teaches, claim 25, wherein the doped layer has a first crystalline structure, the undoped layer has a second crystalline structure, and the first and second crystalline structures are different ([0015]).
Chen teaches, claim 27, further comprising:
removing respective portions of the respective undoped layers from the respective underlying doped layers ([0027], etching gas).
Chen teaches, claim 28, further comprising exposing the respective undoped layers to an etching process during the epitaxial growth process ([0027], etching gas).
Chen teaches, claim 29, overfilling the recess with the doped layers and the undoped layers (figure 4; [0037], multiple layers).
Chen teaches, claim 30, wherein the doped layer and the undoped layer are epitaxially grown in a same processing chamber (figure 4; [0037], in-situ epitaxy growth process).
Chen teaches, claim 31, further comprising activating the first dopant within the doped layer, the another doped layer, and the additional doped layer to diffuse the first dopant into respective undoped layers ([0004], prevent out-diffusion into the channel region, [0030], further increases the short channel effect (SCE)).
Chen teaches, claim 32, wherein a concentration of the first dopant is higher in respective undoped layers compared to respective doped layers, after the activating step (figures 4 and 5; [0030], further increases the short channel effect (SCE)).
Chen teaches, claim 33, a method comprising:
forming a recess (23) in a substrate (21) (figure 3; [0023]);
at least partially filling the recess (23) with semiconductor material by repeating a pattern of epitaxially growing respective first layers doped (27, 35) with a first dopant species, followed by epitaxially growing respective boosting layers (29), substantially free of the first dopant species, until a desired portion of the recess (23) is filled, wherein the respective boosting layers (29) have a high concentration of unbound first dopant bonding sites relative to respective first layers (27, 35), and wherein each of the respective boosting layers (29) is sandwiched between respective first layers (figures 4 and 5; [0026-0033]); and
activating the first dopant species to diffuse from respective first layers to respective unbound first dopant bonding sites in the respective boosting layers ([0004], prevent out-diffusion into the channel region, [0030], further increases the short channel effect (SCE)).
Chen teaches, claim 34, wherein epitaxially growing respective first layers doped with a first dopant species is performed in a first process chamber while a first dopant based vapor is being introduced into the first process chamber, and further wherein epitaxially growing respective boosting layers is performed in the first process chamber while the first dopant based vapor is being withheld from the first process chamber (figure 4; [0037], in-situ epitaxy growth process).
Chen teaches, claim 35, wherein respective first layers are lattice mismatched to respective boosting layers ([0015]).
Chen teaches, claim 36, wherein a ratio of thicknesses of respective first layers to respective boosting layers is in a range of from 10:1 to 2:1 (figures 4 and 5; [0029-0031).
Chen teaches, claim 37, wherein respective first layers are epitaxially grown conformally on a bottom and sidewalls of the recess figure 4; [0030-0032]).
Chen teaches, in claim 38, a method comprising:
forming a recess (23) in a semiconductor substrate (21) (figure 3; [0023-0025]);
epitaxially growing a first layer of doped material (27) in contact with the substrate (21) in the recess (23), the doped material comprising a semiconductor material and a first dopant (figure 4; [0029]);
epitaxially growing a boosting layer (29) on the first layer (27) of doped material in the recess (23), wherein the boosting layer (29) has a high concentration of unbound dopant bonding sites relative to the first layer (27) of doped material ([0029-0030]);
growing a second layer (35) of the doped material on the boosting layer (29) (figure 4; [0031]); and
activating dopants in the first layer (27) of doped material and the second layer (35) of the doped material to bond with unbound dopant bonding sites in the boosting layer (29) (figure 4; [0031-0033], [0047]).
Chen teaches, in claim 39, wherein prior to the step of activating, the boosting layer is substantially free of the first dopant ([0030]).
Chen teaches, in claim 40, further comprising removing portions of the boosting layer during the process of epitaxially growing the boosting layer ([0027], etching gas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the remarks on pages 6-9 applicant has amended the claim 21, to incorporate the steps “wherein each undoped layer is sandwiched between two doped layers.” In addition, in claim 21, “the step of epitaxially growing a doped layer in the recess, the doped layer being doped with first dopant.”
The examiner views that, Chen teaches a doped layer (27) an undoped layer (29) and a doped layer (35) (See figure 4; [0030-0032]). Therefore, Chen meets the limitation requirements of having each undoped layer sandwiched between two doped layers”.
In claim 33, applicant has amended the claims to incorporate “wherein each of the respective boosting layers is sandwiched between respective first layers;”
The examiner views that, Chen teaches a doped layer (27) an undoped layer (29) and a doped layer (35) (See figure 4; [0030-0032]). In addition, the examiner is unclear as described in the 112 rejection above as it relates to the sandwiching of the respective boosting layers and the respective first layers.
In claim 38, applicant has amended the claim to incorporate “epitaxially growing a first layer of doped material in contact with the substrate in the recess…”
The examiner views that, Chen teaches the first doped layer (27) touches the side surfaces of the recess at the upper side portions of the recess (23), thus meets the requirements of the claim (see figure 4; [0030-0032]).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-40 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. Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 April 30, 2026
/Leonard Chang/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights