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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because The Claim recites the following informalities: “The method of Claim 14, 14, wherein the diluted HF solution has an HF to water ratio no larger than about 1:500.”. Examiner believes the extra “14” is a typo. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng-I Lin et al. (US 20240038872 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Lin” .
The applied reference has a common Applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claim 1, Lin teaches
A method, comprising:
forming a plurality of stacks of semiconductor layers (115 and 120 of Fig. 13c), each of the stacks including a plurality of first semiconductor layers (120) and a plurality of second layers (115) alternately stacked with each other;
forming a gate electrode structure(135) on each of the stacks of semiconductor layers, each of the gate electrode structures including a gate spacer(140);
forming an epitaxial S/D feature (125) in an opening between each pair of neighboring stacks of semiconductor layers;
applying oxygen ion beams (treatment process 160) on the gate spacers with a tilt angle (Para [0041]) to form oxidized materials on the gate spacers; and
removing the oxidized materials ([Para 0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lin teaches
The method of Claim 1, further comprising adjusting the tilt angle (tapering angle Para[0048]) based on an aspect ratio of an opening between the gate structures.
Regarding Claim 21, Lin teaches
A method, comprising:
forming a pair of S/D regions (Fig 15C elements 125);
forming a channel region (region C and/or layer 110) between the S/D regions;
forming a gate structure (135) over the channel region (Fig 15C, para[0022]), the gate structure comprising a gate spacer(140); and oxidizing and removing one or more surface portions of the gate spacer([0037]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2, 3, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chien Ning Yao et al. (US 20240304687 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Yao”.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 3 Lin teaches
The method of Claim 1,
And oxidization performed by oxygen ion beams
Lin does not explicitly teach the nodules and therefore is not relied upon to teach
the oxidized materials comprising a plurality of nodules formed on the gate spacers while forming the epitaxial S/D features
further comprising removing the oxidized nodules with diluted HF solution.
Yao does teach where the nodules are formed from the epitaxial growth and does teach
the oxidized materials comprising a plurality of nodules(Fig 6A and 6B, element 332) formed on the gate spacers (328) while forming the epitaxial S/D features.(para[0051])
further comprising removing the oxidized nodules with diluted HF solution.(Para [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin such that the oxidized materials comprises a plurality of nodules formed on the gate spacers while forming the epitaxial S/D features and further removing the oxidized nodules with diluted HF solution, as described in Yao because the modification allows for the nodule defects, that occur with the process of epitaxially growing the S/D, to be removed efficiently with the oxidized layer. Thusly improving uniformity of the spacer layer. (Yao Para [0017],[0051])
Regarding Claim 7 Lin in view of Yao teaches
The method of Claim 2,
Lin does not teach
wherein the oxidized materials comprise a plurality of portions of the gate spacers exposed between the nodules and oxidized by the oxygen ion beams.
Yao further teaches
wherein the oxidized materials (fig. 6a elements 328 and 332) comprise a plurality of portions of the gate spacers exposed between(Fig.6a) the nodules(332) and oxidized by the oxygen ion beams.(Para [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin in view of view of Yao such that the oxidized materials comprise a plurality of portions of the gate spacers exposed between the nodules and oxidized by the oxygen ion beams, as described in Yao because the nodules are small defects that do not cover the whole surface of the spacer therefore removing the spacer will remove the nodule and oxidizing and removing the oxidation removes the defects uniformly. Thusly improving uniformity of the spacer layer. (Yao Para [0017],[0051])
Regarding Claim 9 Lin in view of Yao teaches
The method of Claim 7,
Lin does not teach
further comprising removing the oxidized portions of the gate spacers by applying diluted HF solution
Yao further teaches
further comprising removing the oxidized portions of the gate spacers by applying diluted HF solution (Para[0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin in view of Yao such that the method is comprising removing the oxidized portions of the gate spacers by applying diluted HF solution , as described in Yao because the modification allows for the uniform removal of the nodules and spacer material. Thusly improving uniformity of the spacer layer and removes any residues of sacrificial spacer and/or nodule contaminants. (Yao Para [0017],[0051])
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Yao as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yoichi Fukushima et al. (US 20210050428 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Fukushima”.
Regarding Claim 4, Lin in view of Yao teaches
The method of Claim 3, with the use of a diluted HF solution
Lin in view of Yao does not explicitly teach
wherein the diluted HF solution has a HF to water ratio of about 1:500.
However, according to Fukushima
wherein the diluted HF solution has a HF to water ratio of about 1:500. (this concentration is within the commercially available concentration range Para[0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin in view of Yao such that the diluted HF solution has a HF to water ratio of about 1:500, as described in Fukushima because the modification is of a common commercially available concentration range and this diluted HF would be less abrasive to the more delicate oxidized layers than pure HF. (Fukushima para [0049])
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Lin.
Regarding Claim 14 Yao teaches
A method (para[0051]) for removing nodules (332 Fig.6a) formed on a gate spacer (328) during formation of an epitaxial S/D feature in a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
oxidizing the nodules (Para[0051]); and;
removing the nodules that have been oxidized by oxygen ions using diluted HF solution (para[0051]).
Yao is not relied upon to teach
applying directional oxygen ion beams to oxidize the material with a tilt angle adjusted to prevent oxygen ions applied to the epitaxial S/D features
However, Lin does teach the oxidization using ions
applying directional oxygen ion beams(treatment process 160) to oxidize the material with a tilt angle (Para [0041]) adjusted to prevent oxygen ions applied to the epitaxial S/D features (not applied to 125 Fig. 20C)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yao such that the applying directional oxygen ion beams to oxidize the material with a tilt angle adjusted to prevent oxygen ions applied to the epitaxial S/D features, as described in Lin because the modification of the oxygen ions provides targeted oxidation of gate spacers . (Lin Para[0036])
Regarding Claim 15 Yao in view of Lin teaches
The method of Claim 14,
Yao does not teach
the oxygen ion beams
Lin further teaches
further comprising oxidizing portions of the gate spacers by the oxygen ion beams (Para[0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yao in view of Lin such that the method is further comprising oxidizing portions of the gate spacers by the oxygen ion beams, as described in Lin because the modification of the oxygen ions provides targeted oxidation of gate spacers. (Lin Para[0036])
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Lin as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Fukushima.
Regarding Claim 17 Yao in view of Lin teaches
The method of Claim 14,
Yao in view of Lin does not explicitly teach
wherein the diluted HF solution has an HF to water ratio no larger than about 1:500.
However, according to Fukushima
wherein the diluted HF solution has an HF to water ratio no larger than about 1:500.
(this concentration is within the commercially available concentration range Para[0049])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device Yao in view of Lin such that the diluted HF solution has an HF to water ratio no larger than about 1:500, as described in Fukushima because the modification is of a common commercially available concentration range and this diluted HF would be less abrasive to the more delicate oxidized layers than pure HF. (Fukushima para [0049])
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Yao as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shahaji B More et al. (US 20220165581 A1) hereinafter referred to as “More”.
Regarding Claim 5, Lin in view of Yao teaches
The method of Claim 2,
Lin in view of Yao does not explicitly teach
wherein the nodules include n-type nodules and p-type nodules.
More teaches nodule growth during an epitaxial S/D growth
wherein the nodules include n-type nodules(Para[0026]) and p-type nodules (Para[0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin in view of Yao such that the nodules include n-type nodules and p-type nodules, as described in More because the n-type of p-type quality of these nodules relies on the S/D structures being built. And since NMOS and PMOS S/D structures are built in pairs the nodules may either be n-type or p-type . (Para [0026][0032])
Regarding Claim 6 Lin in view of Yao in view of More teaches
The method of Claim 5,
Lin does not teach
further comprising: applying diluted HF solution to remove oxidized n-type nodules; and applying water to remove oxidized p-type nodules.
Yao further teaches
further comprising: applying diluted HF solution to remove oxidized n-type nodules; and applying water to remove oxidized p-type nodules. (Para [0051])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lin in view of Yao in view of More such that the diluted HF solution is to remove oxidized n-type nodules; and applying water is to remove oxidized p-type nodules, as described in Yao because the modification allows for the removal of
any residues of sacrificial spacer layers and/or nodule contaminants. (Yao Para [0051])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-12, 16, 22, 23 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raley; Angelique D (US 20150249017 A1), Yu; Li-Chi (US 20230163198 A1), Wang; Chih-Ching (US 11387322 B2), Greene; Andrew (US 10699965 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIME LYNN SPRENGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30a.m. - 5:00p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/JAIME LYNN SPRENGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights