DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's response to the Office Non-Final Action filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 of this title, 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 1, 4, 6-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over More et al. (US 2019/0165175) (hereafter More), in view of Tsai et al. (US 2013/0011983) (hereafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 1, More discloses a method, comprising:
forming a fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0024) over a substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 5D), wherein the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B) comprises a channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0030, wherein 212 having “the increasing gradient may be a stepped profile”) and a buffer layer (lower portion of 212 in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0029) between the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) and the substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B);
forming a recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0053) in the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), wherein a bottom surface of the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) is directly above the buffer layer (lower portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) and the channel layer; and
forming a source/drain (S/D) layer 790 (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0055) in the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B), wherein the S/D layer 790 (Fig. 6C) comprises a first epitaxial layer 792 (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0062) having a first atomic concentration of germanium (see paragraph 0062, wherein “germanium content in a range from 30% to 50%”) and a second epitaxial layer 796 (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0062) comprising a second atomic concentration of germanium (see paragraph 0062, wherein “germanium content in a range from 50% to 70%”) greater than the first atomic concentration of germanium (see paragraph 0062, wherein “germanium content in a range from 30% to 50%”).
More does not disclose a bottom surface of the recess structure is directly above the buffer layer and the channel layer.
Tsai discloses a bottom surface of the recess structure (42 formed within 26 in Fig. 7, paragraph 0014) is directly above the buffer layer 26 (Fig. 7, paragraph 0015) and the channel layer (region of 28 between 40 in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form a bottom surface of the recess structure is directly above the buffer layer and the channel layer, as taught by Tsai, since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing a bottom surface (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0016, wherein “source/drain stressors 44 may extend into SiGe layer 26 (as shown by dashed lines 42)”) of the recess structure being directly above the buffer layer and the channel layer from the methods listed in Tsai (e.g. source/drain stressors 44 may extend into SiGe layer 26 (as shown by dashed lines 42), or alternatively, not extend into SiGe layer 26); if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case providing a method of forming source/drain layer, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, More further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer (lower portion of 212 in Fig. 8D, paragraph 0030, wherein “SiGe”) and the substrate (see paragraph 0019, wherein “SiGe”) comprise a same material.
Regarding claim 6, More further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0053) comprises etching a first portion 214 (Fig. 6A) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0030) to define the bottom surface of the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) above a second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B).
More does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a thickness of the second portion to a thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2.
Regarding the limitation, “a ratio of a thickness of the second portion to a thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2”, More discloses a ratio of a thickness (see paragraph 0031, wherein “range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm” such that the thickness of the upper portion of 212 is range from about 15 nm to about 30 nm) of the second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) to a thickness (see paragraph 0031, wherein 214 having the thickness in a “range from about 20 nm to about 50 nm”; and 212 having the thickness in a “range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm” such that the thickness of 214 and the upper portion of 212 is in a range from 35 (=20+15) nm to about 80 (=50+30) nm) is about 0.19 (=15/80) or greater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form a ratio of a thickness of the second portion to a thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, More further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 5D) comprises epitaxially growing an additional channel layer 216 (Fig. 5D, paragraph 0044) over the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 5D), wherein forming the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) comprises etching through the additional channel layer 216 (Fig. 6B), and wherein the bottom surface of the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) is above a bottom surface of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 8, More discloses a method, comprising:
forming, over a substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0023), a fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0024) comprising a channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0030, wherein 212 having “the increasing gradient may be a stepped profile”), wherein the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0027, wherein “SiGe”) comprises a material different from the substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0023, wherein “thinned epitaxial silicon layer”);
forming a recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0053) extending through a first portion 214 (Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) and into a second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), wherein a first germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 20% to 40%”) in the first portion 214 (Fig. 6B) is different from a second germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”) in the second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B); and
forming a source/drain (S/D) epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0055) in the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B).
More does not disclose the second portion of the channel layer is directly below the S/D epitaxial layer.
Tsai discloses the second portion of the channel layer is directly below the S/D epitaxial layer.
Tsai discloses the second portion of the channel layer (element number is not shown in Fig. 9 but see 26 in Fig. 8, paragraph 0010) is directly below the S/D epitaxial layer (see lowest 42 in Fig. 9, paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form the second portion of the channel layer is directly below the S/D epitaxial layer, as taught by Tsai, since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the second portion (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0016, wherein “source/drain stressors 44 may extend into SiGe layer 26 (as shown by dashed lines 42)”) of the channel layer being directly below the S/D epitaxial layer from the structures listed in Tsai (e.g. source/drain stressors 44 may extend into SiGe layer 26 (as shown by dashed lines 42), or alternatively, not extend into SiGe layer 26); if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case providing a method of forming source/drain region, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, More further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B) comprises epitaxially growing (see paragraph 0029, wherein “growing a lower part 212 and an upper part 214”) the first 214 (Fig. 6B) and second portions (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), and wherein forming the S/D epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C) comprises epitaxially growing (see paragraph 0055, wherein “selective epitaxial growth”) the S/D epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C) with a third germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0062, wherein “germanium content in a range from 50% to 70%”) greater than the first (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 20% to 40%”) and second germanium atomic concentrations (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”).
Regarding claim 10, More further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B) comprises epitaxially growing the first 214 (Fig. 6B) and second portions (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) with first (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 20% to 40%”) and second germanium atomic concentrations (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”), respectively.
More does not explicitly disclose the first germanium atomic concentration is less than the second germanium atomic concentration.
Regarding the limitation, “the first germanium atomic concentration is less than the second germanium atomic concentration”, More discloses the first germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 20% to 40%”) and the second germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”) such that the first germanium atomic concentration with the germanium content of 20% is less than the second germanium atomic concentration with the germanium content of 30%”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form the first germanium atomic concentration is less than the second germanium atomic concentration, since such a modification would have involved discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, More further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B) comprises epitaxially growing the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) with a channel thickness (see paragraph 0031, wherein 214 having the thickness in a “range from about 20 nm to about 50 nm”; and 212 having the thickness in a “range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm” such that the thickness of 214 and the upper portion of 212 is in a range from 35 (=20+15) nm to about 80 (=50+30) nm), wherein forming the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) comprises etching the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) with an etching depth (see paragraph 0054,wherein “depth in a range from 30 nm and to 100 nm”).
More does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the etching depth to the channel thickness is from about 0.8 to about 0.95.
Regarding the limitation, “a ratio of the etching depth to the channel thickness is from about 0.8 to about 0.95”, More discloses a ratio of the etching depth (see paragraph 0054,wherein “depth in a range from 30 nm and to 100 nm”) to the channel thickness (see paragraph 0031, wherein 214 having the thickness in a “range from about 20 nm to about 50 nm”; and 212 having the thickness in a “range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm” such that the thickness of 214 and the upper portion of 212 is in a range from 35 (=20+15) nm to about 80 (=50+30) nm) is from about 0.38 (=30/80) to about 3.86 (=100/35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form a ratio of the etching depth to the channel thickness is from about 0.8 to about 0.95, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, More further discloses the method of claim 8, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B) comprises forming a buffer layer (lower portion of 212 in Fig. 8D) between the substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B) and the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), and wherein the buffer layer (see paragraph 0030, wherein “SiGe”) and the substrate (see paragraph 0019, wherein “SiGe”) comprise a same material.
Regarding claim 13, More (utilized different elements for a recess structure as applied in claim 8 in the above) discloses a method, comprising:
forming, over a substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0023), a fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0024) comprising a channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0030, wherein 212 having “the increasing gradient may be a stepped profile”), wherein the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0027, wherein “SiGe”) comprises a material different from the substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 6B; and see paragraph 0023, wherein “thinned epitaxial silicon layer”);
forming a recess structure (middle 682 in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0053) extending through a first portion 214 (Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) and into a second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), wherein a first germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 20% to 40%”) in the first portion 214 (Fig. 6B) is different from a second germanium atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”) in the second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B);
forming a source/drain (S/D) epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C, paragraph 0055) in the recess structure (middle 682 in Fig. 6B); and
forming a polysilicon gate structure 360 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0047; and see paragraph 0046, wherein “polysilicon film”) over a top surface of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B);
forming an additional recess structure (leftmost 682 in Fig. 6B, paragraph 0053) adjacent to the polysilicon gate structure 360 (Fig. 6B) and protruding into an indented portion of the top surface of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B); and
forming a spacer 680 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0052) over the polysilicon gate structure 360 (Fig. 6B) and over the indented portion of the top surface of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 14, More further discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising extending the recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B) through the second portion (upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B), and wherein forming the S/D epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C) comprises epitaxially growing (see paragraph 0055, wherein “selective epitaxial growth”) the S/D epitaxial layer 790 (Fig. 6C) in the extended recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B).
More does not explicitly disclose a depth of the extended recess structure is substantially equal to a thickness of the channel layer
Regarding the limitation, “a depth of the extended recess structure is substantially equal to a thickness of the channel layer”, More discloses a depth of the extended recess structure 682 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 0044) is in a range from 30 nm and to 100 nm; and a thickness (see paragraph 0031, wherein 214 having the thickness in a “range from about 20 nm to about 50 nm”; and 212 having the thickness in a “range from about 30 nm to about 60 nm” such that the thickness of 214 and the upper portion of 212 is in a range from 35 (=20+15) nm to about 80 (=50+30) nm) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form a depth of the extended recess structure is substantially equal to a thickness of the channel layer, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, More discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 8D, paragraph 0023);
a fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D, paragraph 0024) on the substrate (204 and 206E in Fig. 8D), wherein the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D) comprises a buffer layer (lower portion of 212 contacting 206E in Fig. 8D, paragraph 0029) with silicon germanium (see paragraph 0024, wherein “silicon germanium (Si.sub.xGe.sub.x-1) film”) and a channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 contacting 798B (element number is not shown in Fig. 8D but see Fig. 8E) in Fig. 8D, paragraph 0030) with silicon germanium (see paragraph 0024, wherein “silicon germanium (Si.sub.xGe.sub.x-1) film”), and wherein the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 contacting 798B (element number is not shown in Fig. 8D but see Fig. 8E) in Fig. 8D) and buffer layer (lower portion of 212 contacting 206E in Fig. 8D) comprise different germanium atomic concentrations (see paragraph 0030, wherein “the semiconductor alloy film 210 comprises SiGe, the lower part 212 of the semiconductor alloy film 210 has a lower atomic percent content (atomic percent content herein referred to as “content”) of germanium than the upper part 214 of the semiconductor alloy film 210 comprising SiGe”);
a gate structure (418, 852, 854, and 860 in Fig. 8D) on a first portion 214 (Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D); and
a source/drain (S/D) region 790 (Fig. 8D, paragraph 0055) on a second portion (upper portion of 212 contacting bottom and side surfaces of 798B (element number is not shown in Fig. 8D but see Fig. 8E) in Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D), wherein a first thickness (vertical length of 214 in Fig. 8D) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) in the first portion 214 (Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D) is greater than a second thickness (vertical length of the upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) in the second portion (upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D).
More does not disclose bottom surfaces of the first and second portions of the fin structure are substantially at a same level.
Tsai discloses bottom surfaces of the first (portion of 28 vertically below 34 in Fig. 8) and second portions (portion of 28 vertically below 44 in Fig. 8) of the fin structure 28 (Fig. 8, paragraph 0011) are substantially at a same level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form bottom surfaces of the first and second portions of the fin structure are substantially at a same level, as taught by Tsai, since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing bottom surfaces (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0016, wherein “source/drain stressors 44…not extend into SiGe layer 26”) of the first and second portions of the fin structure are substantially at a same level from the structures listed in Tsai (e.g. source/drain stressors 44 may extend into SiGe layer 26 (as shown by dashed lines 42), or alternatively, not extend into SiGe layer 26); if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case providing a method of forming source/drain region, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, More discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 15, however More does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a separation between the S/D region and the buffer layer to the first thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2.
Regarding the limitation, “a ratio of a separation between the S/D region and the buffer layer to the first thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2”, More discloses a ratio of a separation (see Fig. 8E and paragraph 0078, wherein “ 5 Å or smaller”) between the S/D region 790 (Fig. 8E, paragraph 0078) and the buffer layer (lower portion of 212 contacting 206E in Fig. 8D) to the first thickness (vertical length of 214 in Fig. 8D, paragraph 0031, wherein “range from about 20 nm to about 50 nm”) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 contacting 798B (element number is not shown in Fig. 8D but see Fig. 8E) in Fig. 8D) is 0.025 (=5 Å / 20 nm) or smaller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More to form a ratio of a separation between the S/D region and the buffer layer to the first thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.05 to about 0.2, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, More further discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 15, wherein a first germanium atomic concentration in the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) is greater (see paragraph 0030, wherein “the semiconductor alloy film 210 comprises SiGe, the lower part 212 of the semiconductor alloy film 210 has a lower atomic percent content (atomic percent content herein referred to as “content”) than a second germanium atomic concentration in the buffer layer (lower portion of 212 below 798 in Fig. 8D).
Regarding claim 19, More further discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 15, wherein top 214 (Fig. 8D) and bottom portions (upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) of the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 between 798 in Fig. 8D) comprise different germanium atomic concentrations (see paragraph 0030, wherein “the semiconductor alloy film 210 comprises SiGe, the lower part 212 of the semiconductor alloy film 210 has a lower atomic percent content (atomic percent content herein referred to as “content”) from each other.
Regarding claim 20, More further discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 15, further comprising a gate spacer 680 (Fig. 8D, paragraph 0052) formed adjacent to the gate structure (418, 852, 854, and 860 in Fig. 8D) and over a third portion (portion of 210 formed vertically below 680 in Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D), wherein a top surface (top surface of the 212 contacting the bottom LDD region (element number is not shown in Fig. 8D but see 798B in Fig. 8E) vertically below 680 in Fig. 8D) of the third portion (portion of 210 formed vertically below 680 in Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D) is lower than a top surface of the first portion 214 (Fig. 8D) of the fin structure 210 (Fig. 8D).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over More in view of Tsai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dewey et al. (US 2017/0358645) (hereafter Dewey).
Regarding claim 2, More further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein forming the fin structure 210 (Fig. 5D) comprises epitaxially growing the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 5D) with a channel thickness over the buffer layer (lower portion of 212 in Fig. 5D).
More and Tsai do not disclose a ratio of the channel thickness to a height of the fin structure is from about 0.1 to about 0.5.
Dewey discloses a ratio of the channel thickness (H4 in Fig. 3A, paragraph 0053, wherein “between 3 and 20 nanometers”) to a height (sum of H1, H3, H4, and H5 in Fig. 3A; see paragraph 0039, wherein H1 is “between 30 and 300 nanometers”; paragraph 0047, wherein H3 is “between 50 and 60 nanometers”; paragraph 0053, wherein H4 is “between 3 and 20 nanometers”; and paragraph 0064, wherein H5 is “between 1-10 nanometers” such that the height of fin structure is between 84 and 390 nanometers. The ratio is between 0.001 (=3/390) and 0.24 (=20/84)) of the fin structure is from about 0.1 to about 0.5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More in view of Tsai to form a ratio of the channel thickness to a height of the fin structure is from about 0.1 to about 0.5, as taught by Dewey, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, More further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein epitaxially growing the channel layer (214 and upper portion of 212 in Fig. 5D) comprises epitaxially growing a germanium-containing material (see paragraph 0030, wherein “SiGe”) with a third atomic concentration (see paragraph 0030, wherein “germanium content in a range from 10% to 30%”) of germanium less than the second atomic concentration of germanium (see paragraph 0062, wherein “germanium content in a range from 50% to 70%”).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over More in view of Tsai as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Sung et al. (US 2017/0154990) (hereafter Sung).
Regarding claim 5, More in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, however More and Tsai do not disclose forming the recess structure comprises etching the channel layer with an etching depth to define the bottom surface of the recess structure, and wherein a ratio of the etching depth to a thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.8 to about 0.95.
Sung discloses forming the recess structure 127 (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0038) comprises etching the channel layer 112 (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0025) with an etching depth (see depth of 127 in Fig. 2A) to define the bottom surface of the recess structure 127 (Fig. 2A), and wherein a ratio of the etching depth (see depth of 127 in Fig. 2A; and see thickness of 112 in Fig. 2A which is H.sub.F in Fig. 1A and paragraph 0025, wherein “range from about 35 nm to about 60 nm”; and see H.sub.R in Fig. 2A and paragraph 0037, wherein “range from about 10 nm to about 20 nm” such that the depth of 127 is range from about 45 (=35+10) nm to about 80 (=60+20) nm) to a thickness (H.sub.F in Fig. 1A, paragraph 0025, wherein “range from about 35 nm to about 60 nm”) of the channel layer 112 (Fig. 2A, paragraph 0025) is from about 0.75 (=45/60) to about 2.29 (=80/35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More in view of Tsai to include forming the recess structure comprises etching the channel layer with an etching depth to define the bottom surface of the recess structure, and wherein a ratio of the etching depth to a thickness of the channel layer is from about 0.8 to about 0.95, as taught by Sung, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, More in view of Tsai discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 15, however More and Tsai do not disclose a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is from about 0.05 to about 0.2.
Sung discloses a ratio (see H.sub.R in paragraph 0037 and H.sub.F in paragraph 0025, wherein the ratio is from about 0.17 (=10/60) to about 0.57 (=20/35)) of the second thickness (H.sub.R in Fig. 2A, paragraph 0037, wherein “range from about 10 nm to about 20 nm”) to the first thickness (H.sub.F in Fig. 1A, paragraph 0025, wherein “range from about 35 nm to about 60 nm”) is from about 0.05 to about 0.2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of More in view of Tsai to form a ratio of the second thickness to the first thickness is from about 0.05 to about 0.2, as taught by Sung, since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAMONT B KOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0984. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/L.B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights