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 .
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 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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 10/30/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2024 and 06/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (PG Pub 2012/0264306; hereinafter Wu) and Hori et al. (US Patent No. 5,188,706; hereinafter Hori)
PNG
media_image1.png
708
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 8 and fig. 9 provided above, Wu teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
an etching target layer 504;
a first boron-doped layer 507 over the etching target layer, the first boron-doped layer having a first boron concentration (para [0026]); and
a second boron-doped layer 509 over the first boron layer, the second boron-doped layer having a second boron concentration (para [0026]) different from the first boron concentration (para [0026]; boron concentration is greater than that of the first boron-doped silicon layer) wherein:
the first boron concentration within the first boron-doped silicon layer is uniform within the first boron-doped silicon layer (para [002 and the second boron concentration is a uniform within the second boron-doped silicon layer (para [0026]).
para [0026]] “the second boron nitride layer 509 having a greater boron concentration is disposed on the first boron nitride layer 507 having a lower boron concentration, the second boron nitride layer 509 can provide a better etch selectivity with respect to the dielectric layer 502 in the etching process, while the first boron nitride layer 507 which is closer to the dielectric layer 502 can tune the stress of the dielectric layer 502 so as to avoid the phenomenon of line distortion in conventional arts.”
Although, Wu teaches the dielectric material composition of the first and second layer comprises a boron-doped layer, he does not explicitly teach the boron-doped layer additionally comprises silicon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hori teaches a dielectric material composition comprises SiC, and silicon, silicon nitride, boron nitride or a boron-doped silicon (col. 13 lines 51-55); which are recognized equivalent dielectric material compositions.
According to MPEP 2144.06 (II), "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); wherein an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (see also Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980 and 209 USPQ at 759.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to substitute the material composition of the first and second boron-doped layer, with the equivalent boron-doped silicon material, as taught by Hori.
Wu does not explicitly teach “the first boron concentration gradually increases from a bottom surface to a top surface.”
However, according to section 2144.05(II)(A) of the MPEP which states “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”). Therefore, changing the doping profile within the first boron doped silicon layer would be nothing more than a routine expedient within the field.
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches
the first boron concentration is lower than the second boron concentration (para [0026]; “the second boron nitride layer 509 having a greater boron concentration is disposed on the first boron nitride layer 507 having a lower boron concentration.”)
Regarding claim 3,. refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches Wu teaches a maximum boron concentration of the first boron-doped silicon layer is lower than a minimum boron concentration of the second boron-doped silicon layer (para [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches the first boron-doped silicon layer 507 includes a multi-layer stack of boron-doped silicon layers (para [0027]), and the first boron-doped silicon layer has a graded vertical concentration of boron (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Although, Wu teaches the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 includes a single boron-doped silicon layer (para [0027]), and the second boron-doped silicon layer is the same thickness as the first boron-doped silicon layer. He does not teach the second boron-doped silicon layer is thicker than the first boron-doped silicon layer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the size/proportion of the second boron-doped silicon layer to be thinner or thicker than the first boron-doped silicon layer since the court has held changes in size/proportion normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below (MPEP § 2144).
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A) “[W]here the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation), Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 6, refer to the figures cited above, the combination of Wu and Hori teach the first boron-doped silicon layer 507 and the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 further include at least one of tungsten, carbon, and nitrogen (col. 13 lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches
the etching target layer 504 includes a silicon oxide (Hori-para [0019] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 8 and fig. 9 provided above, Wu teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
an etching target layer 504;
a first boron-doped layer 507 over the etching target layer, the first boron-doped layer having a first boron concentration (para [0026]); and
a second boron-doped layer 509 over the first boron layer, the second boron-doped layer having a second boron concentration (para [0026]) greater than the first boron concentration (para [0026]; boron concentration is greater than that of the first boron-doped silicon layer).
Although, Wu teaches the dielectric material composition of the first and second layer comprises a boron-doped layer, he does not explicitly teach the boron-doped layer additionally comprises silicon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hori teaches a dielectric material composition comprises SiC, and silicon, silicon nitride, boron nitride or a boron-doped silicon (col. 13 lines 51-55); which are recognized equivalent dielectric material compositions.
According to MPEP 2144.06 (II), "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); wherein an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (see also Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980 and 209 USPQ at 759.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to substitute the material composition of the first and second boron-doped layer, with the equivalent boron-doped silicon material, as taught by Hori.
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches the first boron-doped silicon layer has a graded vertical concentration of boron (para [0027]), and the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 has a non-graded vertical concentration of boron (para [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches Wu teaches a maximum boron concentration of the first boron-doped silicon layer is lower than a minimum boron concentration of the second boron-doped silicon layer (para [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches the first boron-doped silicon layer 507 includes a multi-layer stack of boron-doped silicon layers (para [0027]), and the first boron-doped silicon layer has a graded vertical concentration of boron (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Although, Wu teaches the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 includes a single boron-doped silicon layer (para [0027]), and the second boron-doped silicon layer is the same thickness as the first boron-doped silicon layer. He does not teach the second boron-doped silicon layer is thicker than the first boron-doped silicon layer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alter the size/proportion of the second boron-doped silicon layer to be thinner or thicker than the first boron-doped silicon layer since the court has held changes in size/proportion normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below (MPEP § 2144).
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.05(IV)(A) “[W]here the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation), Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 13, refer to the figures cited above, the combination of Wu and Hori teach the first boron-doped silicon layer 507 and the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 further include at least one of tungsten, carbon, and nitrogen (col. 13 lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 14, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 8 and fig. 9 provided above, Wu teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
an oxide layer 504;
a first boron-doped silicon layer 507 over the oxide layer (see Fig. 8 and Fig. 9), wherein the first boron-doped silicon layer including a bottom region and a top region over the bottom region (multi-layered not shown; see para [0026-0027]); and
a second boron-doped silicon layer 509 over the first boron-doped silicon layer (see Fig. 8 and Fig. 9), wherein:
a boron concentration of the bottom region is lower than a boron concentration of the top region, the boron concentration of the top region is lower than a boron concentration of the second boron-doped silicon layer (para [0026-0027]).
Although, Wu teaches the dielectric material composition of the first and second layer comprises a boron-doped layer, he does not explicitly teach the boron-doped layer additionally comprises silicon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hori teaches a dielectric material composition comprises SiC, and silicon, silicon nitride, boron nitride or a boron-doped silicon (col. 13 lines 51-55); which are recognized equivalent dielectric material compositions.
According to MPEP 2144.06 (II), "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); wherein an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (see also Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980 and 209 USPQ at 759.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to substitute the material composition of the first and second boron-doped layer, with the equivalent boron-doped silicon material, as taught by Hori.
Regarding claim 16, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches a boron concentration of the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 is greater than the boron concentration of the top region (top layer of 507; para [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 18, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Wu and Hori, Wu teaches a second boron concentration the second boron-doped silicon layer 509 has a uniform boron concentration (para [0026-0027]).
Allowable Subject Matter
2. Claims 15 and 17 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 15, the first boron-doped silicon layer further includes an intermediate region between the bottom region and the top region, wherein a boron concentration of the intermediate region is greater than the boron concentration of the bottom region and lower than the boron concentration of the top region.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 17, a first boron concentration of the first boron-doped silicon layer gradually increases from the bottom region to the top region.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817