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
Newly submitted claims 20 and 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1: the first exposed surface consists of Si {100} crystal face and the second exposed surface consists a Si {110} crystal facet (Spec., [0086]; original claim 3)
Species 2: the first exposed surface and the second exposed surface comprises oxide (Spec., [0087], new claims 20 and 21).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 20 and 21 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2022/0310390) in view of Cheng (US 2022/0020583).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a method for forming a Si-comprising epitaxial layer selectively on a substrate, the method comprising: providing the substrate (Fig.5A, numeral 502) to a process chamber ([0035]), the substrate comprising an exposed surface(Fig.4, numeral 402), the exposed surface comprising a first exposed surface (vertical surface of (502)) and a second exposed surface (horizontal surface of (502)), the second exposed surface being different than the first exposed surface (Abstract; [0037]), providing, to the process chamber, a Si-containing precursor, thereby forming the Si- comprising epitaxial layer on the exposed surface (Fig. 5A, numeral 504; [0037]), the Si-comprising epitaxial layer comprising a first portion formed on the first exposed surface and a second portion formed on the second exposed surface (Fig.5A), providing an etching gas to the process chamber, thereby removing, selectively, the first portion or the second portion of the Si-comprising epitaxial layer (Fig.5B; [0037]).
Huang does not disclose wherein the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine and bromine.
Cheng however discloses wherein the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine or bromine ([0037]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Fitzgerald to have the Si-containing precursor as a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine or bromine for the purpose of reducing the decomposition temperature of silanes (Cheng, [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses wherein the first exposed surface and the second exposed surface is a single crystalline surface, the second exposed surface having a different crystal orientation than the first exposed surface ([0037]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses wherein the first exposed surface comprises a Si {100} crystal facet and the second exposed surface comprises a Si {1101} crystal facet ([0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses wherein the epitaxial layer is formed in a gap comprised in the substrate, the gap comprising a bottom surface and sidewalls bounding the bottom surface, wherein the bottom surface comprises the first exposed surface and the sidewalls comprise the second exposed surface (Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses wherein the silicon halide precursor is provided, to the process chamber, substantially simultaneously with a process gas comprising at least a Ge-containing precursor and a p-type dopant precursor, thereby forming the Si-comprising epitaxial layer as a p-type doped SiGe epitaxial layer ([0037]; [0037]).
Regarding claim 10, Huang discloses wherein the process gas comprises substantially of the Ge-containing precursor, and the p-type dopant precursor, thereby forming the p- type doped SiGe epitaxial layer ([0036]).
Regarding claim 13, Huang discloses wherein the process gas further comprises a chlorosilane precursor, thereby forming the p-type doped SiGe epitaxial layer ([0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Huang discloses wherein the process chamber is maintained, during the selective formation of the epitaxial layer, at a temperature of about 270 °C ([0035]).
Regarding claim 18, Huang discloses wherein the p-type dopant precursor is diborane and the Ge-containing precursor is germane ([0036]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cheng as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Huang’489 (US 2020/0035489).
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses wherein the process chamber is maintained, during the forming of the Si-comprising the epitaxial layer, at a temperature less than 450 °C ([0037]).
Huang does not disclose a pressure in a range above 10 Torr to 80 Torr ([0029]).
Huang’489 however discloses selective deposition at a temperature of about 400 °C, and at a pressure of about 20 Torr ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Huang’480 to adjust the parameters of the selective deposition to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization deposition process.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cheng as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fitzgerald (US 2003/0230233).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the silicon halide precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 50 sccm - 1000 sccm.
Fitzgerald discloses wherein the silicon halide precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 50 sccm - 1000 sccm ([0049]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the flow rate of the silicon halide precursor to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the deposition process.
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the Ge-containing precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 100 sccm - 800 sccm.
Fitzgerald discloses wherein the Ge-containing precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 100 sccm - 800 sccm ([0049]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the flow rate of the Ge- precursor to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the deposition process.
Regarding claim 17, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the chlorosilane precursor is di-chlorosilane and is provided at a flow rate in a range of 200 sccm to 400 sccm and wherein the silicon halide precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 100 sccm to 300 sccm.
Fitzgerald discloses wherein the chlorosilane precursor is di-chlorosilane and is provided at a flow rate in a range of 200 sccm to 400 sccm and wherein the silicon halide precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 100 sccm to 300 sccm ([0049]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the flow rate of the precursor to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the deposition process.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cheng ass applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Raaijmakers (US 2001/0020712).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm.
Raaijmakers however discloses the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm ([0077]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Raaijmakers to have the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm for the purpose of controlling doping concentration (Raaijmakers, [0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose (wherein the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 3 sccm.
Raaijmakers however discloses the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 13 sccm ([0077]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Raaijmakers to have the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm – 3 sccm for the propose of controlling doping concentration (Raaijmakers, [0077]).
Claim(s) 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cheng as applied to claims 5, 10 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang’489 (US 2020/0035489).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm.
Huang ‘489 however discloses the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Huang’489 to have the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 150 sccm for the purpose of controlling doping concentration (Huang’489, [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Huang does not wherein the process chamber is maintained, during the selective formation of the epitaxial layer, at a temperature of about 400 °C, and at a pressure of about 20 Torr.
Huang’489 however discloses selective deposition at a temperature of about 400 °C, and at a pressure of about 20 Torr ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Huang’480 to adjust the parameters of the selective deposition to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization deposition process.
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Cheng does not disclose (wherein the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 3 sccm.
Huang’489 however discloses the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm - 13 sccm ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Raaijmakers to have the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm – 3 sccm for the purpose of controlling doping concentration (Huang’489, [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses wherein the process chamber is maintained, during the selective formation of the epitaxial layer at a pressure of 10 Torr ([0035]).
Huang does not disclose a temperature in a range of 250 °C to 300 °C.
Huang’489 however discloses selective deposition at a temperature of 250 °C to 300 °C ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Huang’480 to adjust the parameters of the selective deposition to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization deposition process.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cheng and Huang ‘480 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Raaijmakers (US 2001/0020712).
Regarding claim 16, Huang does not disclose wherein the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 25 sccm - 200 sccm.
Raaijmakers however discloses the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 25 sccm - 200 sccm ([0077]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Huang with Raaijmakers to have the p-type dopant precursor is provided at a flow rate in a range of 25 sccm - 200 sccm for the purpose of controlling doping concentration (Raaijmakers, [0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under Huang in view of Fitzgerald have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang in view of Cheng.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights