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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the "the dry etching" and depends from claim 1, which does not recite any “dry etching” step. It is unclear if this is a new dry etch or possibly intended to reference the dry etch step from claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 20180033872 A1).
CLAIM 1. Bao teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device comprising:
positioning a substrate into a processing chamber (Bao – Abstract), the substrate having an exposed non-crystalline surface (dielectric 208) and an exposed crystalline surface (semiconductor 206) (Bao Fig. 2A);
heating the processing chamber to a temperature for deposition (Bao-¶25 – process is carried out above ambient temperatures, thus implicitly requires teaches a step of heating.);
injecting a pre-treatment gas into the processing chamber (Bao - Fig. 3A & ¶26-29- precursor SbCl3), wherein the pre- treatment gas comprises a molecule (SbCl3) configured to lower interfacial energy between the exposed non-crystalline surface and the exposed crystalline surface (A prior art reference that discloses the same material being applied in the same manner implicitly anticipates the claimed invention if the resulting characteristic is necessarily present (i.e., flows naturally) from that process, even if the prior art was silent to that specific result" (MPEP § 2112; Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.); and injecting a deposition gas into the processing chamber to selectively grow an doped epitaxial silicon layer 214 on the exposed crystalline surface 204 (Bao - Figs. 2C & 3A – Si).
Bao is simply silent upon a specific dopant type, [0019] teaches that the layer may be doped or undoped, without specifying a particular dopant type. As doping is recognized in the art as being limited to P-type or N-type, selecting either is a routine design choice that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention, to selectively grow N-type doped Si. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
218
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 2. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the molecule is a group-V chloride (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3).
CLAIM 3. Bao teaches a method of claim 2, wherein the molecule is selected from a group consisting of PC13, AsCl3, and SbCl3 (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3).
CLAIM 4. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the injecting a pre-treatment gas and the injecting a deposition gas at least partially overlap (Bao Fig. 3B -SbCl3)..
PNG
media_image3.png
666
564
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 5. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the injecting a pre-treatment gas is completed prior to the injecting a deposition gas (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3)..
CLAIM 6. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the injecting a pre-treatment gas and the injecting a deposition gas are repeated sequentially a plurality of times (Bao Fig. 3B -SbCl3)..
CLAIM 8. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the exposed non-crystalline surface comprises a silicon oxide, a silicon nitride, a silicon carbonitride, a silicon oxycarbide, a silicon oxycarbonitride, or a combination thereof
CLAIM 10. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of exposed silicon layers have <110> structure (Bao ¶[0005]) .
CLAIM 11. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the temperature for deposition is 400 degrees Celsius or higher (Bao ¶[0025]) .
CLAIM 12. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the injecting a pre-treatment gas is performed at a pressure within a range from about 1 torr to about 760 torr (Bao ¶[0032]) .
CLAIM 13. Bao teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device comprising: positioning a substrate into a processing chamber (Bao – Abstract), the substrate having a multi-material layer formed thereon, the multi-material layer comprising, a plurality of exposed dielectric surfaces 204 on a plurality of Si1-xGex layers (Bao - ¶[0017] – Si, SiGe) and a plurality of exposed silicon layers 206;
heating the processing chamber to a temperature for deposition (Bao ¶[0025]);
injecting a pre-treatment gas into the processing chamber (Bao - Fig. 3A & ¶26-29- precursor SbCl3), wherein the pre- treatment gas comprises a molecule configured to lower interfacial energy between the plurality of exposed dielectric surfaces and the plurality of exposed silicon layers(A prior art reference that discloses the same material being applied in the same manner implicitly anticipates the claimed invention if the resulting characteristic is necessarily present (i.e., flows naturally) from that process, even if the prior art was silent to that specific result" (MPEP § 2112; Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.); and
injecting a deposition gas into the processing chamber to selectively grow an doped epitaxial silicon layer on the exposed silicon layers (Bao - ¶[0019]).
Bao is simply silent upon a specific dopant type, [0019] teaches that the layer may be doped or undoped, without specifying a particular dopant type. As doping is recognized in the art as being limited to P-type or N-type, selecting either is a routine design choice that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention, to selectively grow N-type doped Si. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
CLAIM 14. Bao teaches a method of claim 13, wherein the exposed dielectric surface comprises SiCyNz wherein y is greater than or equal to zero and z is greater than zero (Bao - ¶[0019] – Teaches the conventional dielectric materials meeting the equation (SiO, SiN, SiCN, SiON…).
CLAIM 15. Bao teaches a method of claim 13, wherein the molecule is a group-V chloride SbCl3 (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3).
CLAIM 16. Bao teaches a method of claim 15, wherein the molecule is selected from a group consisting of PC13, AsCl3, and SbCl3 SbCl3 (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3).
Bao is simply silent upon a specific dopant type, [0019] teaches that the layer may be doped or undoped, without specifying a particular dopant type. As doping is recognized in the art as being limited to P-type or N-type, selecting either is a routine design choice that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention, to selectively grow N-type doped Si. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. in view of Basker et al. (US-20140239395-A1).
CLAIM 7. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, however is silent upon further comprising exposing the substrate to a dry etchant to remove contaminants from a surface of the substrate. Basker teaches performing a dry etching steps to clean contaminants from surfaces of fins prior to growing epitaxial S/D regions (Basker ¶[0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Bao with an additional cleaning as taught by Basker, since applying a known technique (dry etch cleaning) to a known device ready for improvement (fins) to yield predictable results (improved surface prep for subsequent epitaxial growth ) is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim(s) 9, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. in view of Basker et al. (US 20140239395 A1) in view of Chang et al. (US 20210098304 A1) and Yu et al.( US 20150200260 A1)
CLAIM 9. Bao teaches a method of claim 1, however Basker is silent upon wherein the dry etching comprises exposure of the substrate to H2, NF3, NH3 and plasma by-products. Such materials and processes were well-known and expected as conventional dry etching techniques. Both Chang (at ¶[0033]) and Yu (at ¶[0027]) teach the conventional SiCoNi cleaning process using the claimed materials. Specifically, Yu describes SiCoNi as a remote plasma-assisted dry etch process involving simultaneous exposure of a substrate to H2, NF3, and NH3 plasma by-products.
A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would find the use of H2/NF/NH3 plasma by-products for Si fin oxide cleaning to be obvious, as this chemistry is a widely recognized standard in-situ dry cleaning technology for selectively removing native oxide prior to epitaxial growth. The reaction of NF3 and NH3 plasmas, known to form NH4F compounds, selectively etches silicon dioxide and desorbs as gaseous by-products, ensuring a clean, hydrogen-terminated silicon surface. Consequently, applying this conventional dry etching technique to remove surface contaminants from a Si fin surface prior to S/D epitaxy constitutes a routine optimization of surface preparation, as disclosed in prior art focusing on defect reduction
CLAIM 17. Bao in view of Basker in view of Chang in view of Yu teach a method of forming a semiconductor device comprising:
positioning a substrate into a chamber (Bao – Abstract),, the substrate having a multi- material layer formed thereon, the multi-material layer comprising a plurality of dielectric surfaces 204 disposed on outer surfaces of a plurality of Si1-xGex layers 206 and a plurality of silicon layers 206, the plurality of Si1-xGex layers arranged in an alternating pattern with the plurality of silicon layers (Bao ¶[0019] teaches the fins may be Si or SiGe. It would be obvious to alternate silicon (Si, ideal for n-type) and silicon-germanium (SiGe, ideal for p-type) fins to optimize CMOS device performance, as a prior art disclosure of these materials in an alternating substrate structure provides no significant manipulative distinction, rendering the variation a predictable result of trying to merge standard materials with known properties (35 U.S.C. 103, see MPEP § 2144.04));
positioning the substrate into a processing chamber (Bao Abstract); heating the processing chamber to a temperature for deposition (Bao ¶[0025]);
injecting a pre-treatment gas into the processing chamber (Bao - Fig. 3A & ¶26-29- precursor SbCl3), wherein the pre- treatment gas comprises a molecule configured to lower interfacial energy between the dielectric surface and the silicon surface; and injecting a deposition gas into the processing chamber to selectively grow an doped epitaxial silicon layer on the exposed silicon surface
(A prior art reference that discloses the same material being applied in the same manner implicitly anticipates the claimed invention if the resulting characteristic is necessarily present (i.e., flows naturally) from that process, even if the prior art was silent to that specific result" (MPEP § 2112; Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc.).
Bao is simply silent upon a specific dopant type, [0019] teaches that the layer may be doped or undoped, without specifying a particular dopant type. As doping is recognized in the art as being limited to P-type or N-type, selecting either is a routine design choice that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention, to selectively grow N-type doped Si. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co v. Teleflex Inc.
Bao is silent upon exposing the substrate to a dry etchant to remove contaminants from a surface of the substrate (Basker is silent upon wherein the dry etching comprises exposure of the substrate to H2, NF3, NH3 and plasma by-products. Such materials and processes were well-known and expected as conventional dry etching techniques. Both Chang (at ¶[0033]) and Yu (at ¶[0027]) teach the conventional SiCoNi cleaning process using the claimed materials. Specifically, Yu describes SiCoNi as a remote plasma-assisted dry etch process involving simultaneous exposure of a substrate to H2, NF3, and NH3 plasma by-products.)
It would be an obvious modification of Bao to include a dry etch cleaning step for fins prior to S/D epitaxial growth. While Bao is silent on this step, Basker teaches that dry etching is conventional for cleaning fins, and Chang/Yu disclose suitable techniques (e.g., SiCoNi) and chemistries for pre-epi surface preparation. Performing this cleaning within a single chamber satisfies both the "cleaning chamber" and "chamber" requirements, as the claim does not require these to be distinct structures; a single processing chamber may perform multiple processes. Alternatively, performing the cleaning and deposition in separate chambers is rendered obvious by the combination of references, particularly if the deposition chamber is not capable of the dry etch cleaning described by Basker, Chang, and Yu.
A PHOSITA would modify Bao with this, or other known dry cleaning techniques, to achieve the expected benefits of removing residues, native oxide, and damaged layers to optimize epitaxial quality).
CLAIM 18. Bao in view of Basker in view of Chang in view of Yu teach a method of claim 17, wherein the molecule is a group-V chloride (Bao Fig. 3A -SbCl3).
CLAIM 19. Bao in view of Basker in view of Chang in view of Yu teach a method of claim 17, wherein the injecting a pre-treatment gas and the injecting a deposition gas are repeated sequentially a plurality of times (Bao Fig. 3B).
CLAIM 20. Bao in view of Basker in view of Chang in view of Yu teach a method of claim 17, wherein the exposed dielectric surface comprises a silicon oxide, a silicon nitride, a silicon carbonitride, a silicon oxycarbide, a silicon oxycarbonitride, or a combination thereof (Bao ¶[0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
4/8/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights