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 traverse of restriction requirements the reply filed on 07/06/20026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species 1 and Species 2 are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because of the following reasons. First, as stated in the previous Office Action, original claim 3 directed of the mono- crystalline first and second surfaces, while claims 20 and 21 directed to oxide surfaces. Second, Applicant’s specification describes when the second surfaces comprise oxide, the second surface is amorphous of polycrystalline (Spec. [0087]), i.e. this surface is not monocrystalline as required by claim 3. Thus, the limitations of claims 20 and 21 and original claim 3 recite mutually exclusive characteristics.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 18, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2022/0310390) in view of Li (US 12, 444, 605, cited in IDS).
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]).
Haung does not disclose wherein the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine and bromine.
Li however discloses wherein the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine or bromine (column 8, lines 24-35).
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 Li to have the Si-containing precursor as a silicon halide precursor comprising at least one of iodine or bromine for the purpose of improving epitaxial growth (Li, column 5, lines 9-15).
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]).
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses wherein the silicon halide precursor serves as a silicon source for forming the Si-comprising epitaxial layer (column 7, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 23, Huang discloses a method for forming a Si-comprising epitaxial layer selectively on a substrate, the method comprising: providing the substrate to a process chamber, the substrate comprising an exposed surface, the exposed surface comprising a first exposed surface and a second exposed surface, the second exposed surface being different than the first exposed surface; providing, to the process chamber, a Si-containing precursor, thereby forming the Si-comprising epitaxial layer on the exposed surface, 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; and providing an etching gas to the process chamber, thereby removing, selectively, the first portion or the second portion of the Si-comprising epitaxial layer,
Haung does not disclose wherein the Si-containing precursor is an iodosilane.
Li however discloses wherein the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor is an iodisilane (column 8, lines 24-35).
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 Li to have the Si-containing precursor is a silicon halide precursor is an iodisilane for the purpose of improving epitaxial growth (Li, column 5, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 24, Li discloses wherein the iodosilane has a formula of SinIyH2n+2-y, where n is in a range of 1 to 5, and y is in a range of 1 or more (column 8, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 25, Li discloses wherein the iodosilane comprises SiHI3 , SiH2I2, SiH3I, HSi2I5 H2Si2I4, H3Si2I3 , H4Si2I2, H5Si2I, or combinations thereof (column 8, lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses wherein the iodosilane is SiH2I2 (column 8, lines 24-34).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Li as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fitzgerald (US 2003/0230233).
Regarding claim 17, Huang in view of Li 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 skills in 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 Li ass applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Raaijmakers (US 2001/0020712).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Li 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 Li 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]).
Claims 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Li as applied to claims 5, 10 and 13 above, and further in view of Huang’489 (US 2020/0035489).
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 Li 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) claim 1-5, 10-15, 17, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/26/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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