CTNF 18/398,781 CTNF 87875 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 , is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0066079 to Lima, et al. (hereinafter “Lima”) . Regarding claim 1 , Lima teaches a method of fabricating an integrated circuit (IC) (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-9, and entire reference which teach a method of fabricating a component of an IC), comprising: placing a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor process tool working volume (see Figs. 1 & 7 and ¶¶[0024]-[0079] which teach a deposition method (100) which includes placing a semiconductor substrate (202) within a reaction chamber (704) in step (102)); forming a doped epitaxial layer over the semiconductor substrate, including forming a surface-segregated layer (SSL) including a dopant species unincorporated in the doped epitaxial layer (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0024]-[0052] which teach forming a p-type doped SiGe epitaxial layer (306) over the substrate (202) in step (104) which necessarily forms a SSL comprised of dopant species at a surface of the doped epitaxial layer (306); see specifically ¶[0027] which teaches that gallium (Ga) tends to segregate to the surface of p-type doped SiGe layers); removing the SSL (see Figs. 1-5 and ¶¶[0024]-[0068] which teach the deposition of a cap layer (406) in step (106) followed by removal of the cap layer (406) and, consequently, the SSL formed at a surface of the doped epitaxial layer (306) as well as the cap layer (406) itself via an etching step (108)); and removing the semiconductor substrate from the working volume (see Fig. 7 and ¶¶[0073]-[0079] which teaches that the reactor system (700) includes a substrate handling system (702) which necessarily removes the substrate (202) from the reaction chamber (704) after completion of the deposition method (100) in order to perform one or more subsequent wafer processing steps). Regarding claim 2 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed by selectively etching the SSL with essentially no removal of the doped epitaxial layer (see Figs. 3-5 and ¶¶[0061]-[0065] which teach that nearly all of the cap layer (406) containing the SSL is removed with only a thin layer remaining and no removal of the underlying p-doped SiGe layer (306)). Regarding claim 3 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed using a non-selective etch including removing a portion of the doped epitaxial layer (see Fig. 5 and ¶[0068] which teach that all of the capping layer (406) may be completely removed while ¶[0065] teaches that a nonselective halide gas including HCl or Cl 2 can be used as an etchant in step (108) which therefore means that when the capping layer (406) is completely removed, at least a portion of p-doped SiGe layer (306) is also removed as a result of being exposed to the halide gas). Regarding claim 4 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed using a halogen-based etchant comprising at least one of iodine (I), chlorine (CI), bromine (Br), and any combination thereof (see Figs. 1, 5, & 7 and ¶[0065] which teach that a halide gas including HCl or Cl 2 can be used as an etchant in step (108)). Regarding claim 5 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed using a hydrogenated halogen etchant comprising at least one of hydrogen iodide (HI), hydrogen chloride (HCI), hydrogen bromide (HBr), and any combination thereof (see Figs. 1, 5, & 7 and ¶[0065] which teach that a halide gas including HCl can be used as an etchant in step (108)). Regarding claim 6 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed using an etchant comprising a saturated alkane or an analog thereof having M ₙ Z ₂ₙ₊₂ composition, where M comprises at least one of C, Si, Ge and any combinations thereof and Z comprises at least one of I, Br, Cl, H and any combinations thereof (see Figs. 1-3, ¶[0047], and ¶¶[0053]-[0059] which teach that part of the SSL removal process involves the deposition of a Si or SiGe cap layer (406) in step (106) using a precursor gas such as SiH 4 , Si 2 H 6 , GeH 4 , or Ge 2 H 6 which may be equated with the etchant as claimed). Regarding claim 7 , Lima teaches forming a surface conditioning layer over the doped epitaxial layer, the surface conditioning layer formed from at least one of a silane (SinH ₂ n+2 ) precursor, a germane (Ge n H ₂ n+2 ) precursor, and any combination thereof (see Figs 1-3, ¶[0047], and ¶¶[0053]-[0059] which teach the deposition of a cap layer (406) comprised of Si or SiGe in step (106) using a precursor gas such as silane, disilane, germane, or digermane). Regarding claim 8 , Lima teaches that the surface conditioning layer is doped with at least one of boron (B), indium (In), phosphorous (P) and antimony (Sb) (see ¶[0053] which teaches that the cap layer in step (106) may be doped with boron). Regarding claim 9 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed in an operation using the working volume used for forming the doped epitaxial layer (see ¶[0064] which teaches that the etching step (108) can be performed in the same reaction chamber as that used for steps (104) and (106)). Regarding claim 10 , Lima teaches that the SSL is removed in an operation using a different working volume of the semiconductor process tool (see ¶[0064] which teaches that the etching step (108) can be performed in a different reaction chamber within the same cluster tool than that used for steps (104) and (106)) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lima in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,485,538 to Ramdani, et al. (“Ramdani”) . Regarding claim 11 , Lima does not teach that the doped epitaxial layer includes Group V dopant species. However, in Figs. 2-4 and col. 4, l. 33 to col. 5, l. 67 as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ramdani teaches an analogous embodiment of a method for fabricating an IC component comprised of one or more doped SiGe layers including an arsenic (As) ALD layer (303). In col. 2, ll. 11-26 Ramdani teaches that Group V dopants such as phosphorous (P) and As tend to exhibit high levels of segregation as Ge concentrations are varied. In col. 5, ll. 26-44 Ramdani specifically teaches that in order to reduce As surface contamination or surface poisoning it is preferable to deposit a Si cap layer (305) which is exposed to an in-situ etch deposition by HCl etching. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ramdani and would be motivated to utilize the steps of depositing a capping layer in step (106) and subsequently etching the capping layer in step (108) as taught by Lima to minimize or inhibit dopant segregation in SiGe epitaxial layers that are doped with a Group V dopant such as P or As in order to produce an n-doped device with minimal or no dopant segregation and a more uniform dopant profile. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST. 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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. /KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 2 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 3 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 4 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 5 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 6 Art Unit: 1714 Application/Control Number: 18/398,781 Page 7 Art Unit: 1714
Prosecution Insights