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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 1/30/24, 8/14/24, 4/8/25, and 5/23/25. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner and initialed copies of the forms are attached to this correspondence.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged.
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.
(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.
Claims 8, 10, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0310840) (“Li”).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches a method, comprising: forming a fin structure from a substrate (see Figure 2);depositing a first semiconductor material (Figure 7, item 222) over the substrate; depositing an interlayer dielectric layer (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220) over the first semiconductor material; forming an opening in the interlayer dielectric layer to expose the first semiconductor material (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220); performing a first implantation process to form a first amorphous region in the first semiconductor material and to implant a first species in the first amorphous region (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s and ¶0023); performing a second implantation process to form a second amorphous region in the first semiconductor material and to implant a second species in the first and second amorphous regions (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s’ and ¶0024); and performing an annealing process to recrystallize the first and second amorphous regions (see Figure 10 and ¶0027-0029).
Regarding Claim 10, Li further teaches the fin structure comprises a plurality of semiconductor layers (see Figure 2, note layers 206+208).
Regarding Claim 21, Li teaches a method, comprising: forming a fin structure from a substrate (see Figure 2); depositing a first semiconductor material (Figure 7, item 222) over the substrate; depositing an interlayer dielectric layer (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220) over the first semiconductor material; forming an opening in the interlayer dielectric layer to expose the first semiconductor material (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220); performing a first implantation process to implant a first species in the first semiconductor layer (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s and ¶0023); performing a second implantation process to implant a second species in the first semiconductor material (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s’ and ¶0024), wherein the second species comprises fluorine, nitrogen, or carbon (¶0025).
Regarding Claim 23, Li further teaches the fin structure comprises a plurality of semiconductor layers (see Figure 2, note layers 206+208).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0006545)(“Liu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method, comprising: forming a fin structure from a substrate (see Figure 2);depositing a first semiconductor material (Figure 7, item 222) over the substrate; depositing an interlayer dielectric layer (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220) over the first semiconductor material; forming an opening in the interlayer dielectric layer to expose the first semiconductor material (¶0021 and Figure 6, see remaining interlayer dielectric represented as item 220); performing a first implantation process to form a first amorphous region in the first semiconductor material and to implant a first species in the first amorphous region (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s and ¶0023); performing a second implantation process to form a second amorphous region in the first semiconductor material and to implant a second species in the first and second amorphous regions (Figure 8, see creation of item 226s’ and ¶0024), wherein the second species comprises fluorine, nitrogen, or carbon (¶0025); and performing an annealing process to recrystallize the first and second amorphous regions (see Figure 10 and ¶0027-0029).
Li does not specifically teach depositing a second semiconductor material on each semiconductor layer of the plurality of semiconductor layers, wherein the first semiconductor material is deposited on the second semiconductor material. However, Liu teaches forming source/drain structures with two semiconductor materials stacked on top of each other (see Figure 3, items 213 and 292) and subjected them to subsequent amphorphization implants (see Figure 5 and ¶0030-0034) with recrystallization steps (¶0039). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the second semiconductor layer of Liu in the process of Li, as Liu teaches the combined materials allow for generation of strain effects and therefore enhance carrier mobility of the transistor (¶0020).
Regarding Claim 3, Li does not specifically teach a concentration of the first species ranges from about 1 x 1019 cm-3 to about 5 x 1020 cm-3. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the dopant concentration (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the dopant concentration through routine experimentation in order to achieve an optimized amorphous layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 4, Li does not specifically teach a concentration of the second species ranges from about 5 x 1020 cm-3 to about 1 x 1021 cm-3. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the dopant concentration (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the dopant concentration through routine experimentation in order to achieve an optimized amorphous layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 5, Liu further teaches the fin structure comprises the first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer located below the first semiconductor layer, and a third semiconductor layer located below the second semiconductor layer (see Figure 8, note in inset layers 214/223/213/217).
Regarding Claim 6, Liu further teaches depositing the first semiconductor material on the second and third semiconductor layers (see Figure 8, note in inset layers 214/223/213/217).
Regarding Claim 7, Liu further teaches a bottom of the amorphous region is located at a level between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (see Figure 8, note in inset layers 214/223/213/217).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as modified as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US Patent No. 9,595,522) (“Tsai”).
Regarding Claim 2, Li as modified teaches Claim 1 as indicated above. Li as modified does not specifically teach the first species comprises phosphorous and the second semiconductor material comprises SiP. However, Tsai teaches a dual amorphization implant into semiconductor material (see Figures 3-8) where the first implant region includes P (column 5, lines 15-25 – note resulting SiP region) and the second implant region includes C (column 7, lines 7-17 – note resulting SiC region). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the P implant of Tsai in the process of Li as modified, as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (US Patent No. 9,595,522) (“Tsai”).
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches Claim 8 as indicated above. Li further teaches the second species comprises fluorine, nitrogen, or carbon (¶0025). Li does not specifically teach he first species comprises phosphorous. However, Tsai teaches a dual amorphization implant into semiconductor material (see Figures 3-8) where the first implant region includes P (column 5, lines 15-25 – note resulting SiP region) and the second implant region includes C (column 7, lines 7-17 – note resulting SiC region). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the P implant of Tsai in the process of Li, as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 11-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0006545)(“Liu”).
Regarding Claim 11, Li teaches Claim 10 as indicated above. Li does not specifically teach depositing a second semiconductor material on each semiconductor layer of the plurality of semiconductor layers, wherein the first semiconductor material is deposited on the second semiconductor material. However, Liu teaches forming source/drain structures with two semiconductor materials stacked on top of each other (see Figure 3, items 213 and 292) and subjected them to subsequent amphorphization implants (see Figure 5 and ¶0030-0034) with recrystallization steps (¶0039). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the second semiconductor layer of Liu in the process of Li, as Liu teaches the combined materials allow for generation of strain effects and therefore enhance carrier mobility of the transistor (¶0020).
Regarding Claim 12, Li further teaches the second amorphous region is wider and deeper than the first amorphous region (see ¶0023-24, note difference in implant angles and energy, resulting in wider and deeper second regions).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu further teaches the first amorphous region is located between portions of the second semiconductor material (see Figure 7, note implant distribution depicted).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu further teaches the portions of the second semiconductor material are part of the second amorphous region (see Figure 7, note implant distribution depicted)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to Claim 21 above, and further in view of Tsai.
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches Claim 8 as indicated above. Li further teaches the second species comprises fluorine, nitrogen, or carbon (¶0025). Li does not specifically teach he first species comprises phosphorous. However, Tsai teaches a dual amorphization implant into semiconductor material (see Figures 3-8) where the first implant region includes P (column 5, lines 15-25 – note resulting SiP region) and the second implant region includes C (column 7, lines 7-17 – note resulting SiC region). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the P implant of Tsai in the process of Li, as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to Claim 21 above.
Regarding Claim 25, Li teaches Claim 21 as indicated above. Li does not specifically teach a concentration of the first species ranges from about 1 x 1019 cm-3 to about 5 x 1020 cm-3. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the dopant concentration (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the dopant concentration through routine experimentation in order to achieve an optimized amorphous layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 26, Li teaches Claim 21 as indicated above. Li does not specifically teach a concentration of the second species ranges from about 5 x 1020 cm-3 to about 1 x 1021 cm-3. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the dopant concentration (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to adjust the dopant concentration through routine experimentation in order to achieve an optimized amorphous layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0217860)
Glushchenkov et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0115347)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK W TORNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
MARK W. TORNOW
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights