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 election with traverse of the group I invention (a process of making) in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case: the process as claimed does not require controlling a hydrogen gas or a pressure; and the apparatus as claimed does not require a cleaning gas, depositing one or more layers, fins on a substrate or any particular growth rate.
Inventions I and III are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case: the process as claimed does not require a source or drain structure, any particular height configuration, or plane configuration; and the product does not require any particular material composition, or any specific feature resultant from the claimed process.
Inventions II and III are related as apparatus and product made. The inventions in this relationship are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the apparatus as claimed is not an obvious apparatus for making the product and the apparatus can be used for making a materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different apparatus (MPEP § 806.05(g)). In this case: the apparatus as claimed does not require any particular substrate configuration or any of the claimed structures on the substrate; and the product does not require any particular material composition, or any specific feature resultant from the claimed apparatus.
This would result a serious burden since these distinctions would require different field of search with different search queries and classifications. For example, the group I invention can be reasonably searched within H10P 14/24, while the group II invention would need to be searched in C30B 25/165, and the group III invention would need to be searched in H10D 30/024. See MPEP 808.02 for more detail on serious search burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/14/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2023 and 11/8/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not end with a period. Per MPEP 608.01(m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations.” For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: the absence of a period at the end of the claim is found to be a typographical error and is equivalent to the claim ending with a period. However, no actual changes have been made to the claim in the instant Office action. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao (US 20180286962 A1) in view of More (US 20220367649 A1, from IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Bao discloses a method of substrate processing applicable for semiconductor manufacturing (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
heating a substrate ([0035]: “heating the substrate”) positioned in a processing chamber ([0034]: “processing chamber”);
flowing one or more process gases (a collection of gases cited below) over the substrate, wherein the one or more process gases comprise:
trichlorosilane (TCS) ([0029]: “similar process conditions…at least one of the halogenated silicon precursor”; [0022]: “trichlorosilane”), and hydrochloric acid ([0025]: “an additional silicon etchant precursor…hydrogen chloride”); and
depositing one or more layers ([0029]: “epitaxial layers”) on one or more fins ([0030]: “on a 3D FinFET CMOS device”) on the substrate, the deposition of the one or more layers comprising:
forming the one or more layers at a first growth rate (horizontal dimension) along a first dimension and a second growth rate along a second dimension (vertical dimension), and the second growth rate is faster than the first growth rate.
Illustrated below is Fig. 1 of Bao.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bao fails to teach specific growth rates in the first and second dimensions. Thus, Bao fails to teach “and the second growth rate is faster than the first growth rate”.
More discloses a substantially similar method forming the one or more layers at a first growth rate along a first dimension (horizontal dimension) and a second growth rate along a second dimension (vertical dimension), and the second growth rate is faster than the first growth rate ([0051]: “the resulting second layer…vertical thickness…greater than width… the epitaxial growth process together with the in-situ etching process can form second layer 124B having a side surface S124B substantially perpendicular to substrate 102, because the epitaxial growth process together with the etching process has a lower growth rate and a higher etching rate over the (110) crystal plane”). Modifying the method of Bao by incorporating the growth rate configuration of More would arrive at the claimed layer formation configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation the method is an epitaxial silicon layer growth process on a fin (Bao: [0022]: “epitaxial silicon” and [0030]: “FinFET”; More: [0031]: “formed over fin structure …epitaxially-grown…Si”). More teaches motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the growth rate configuration in that it would enable additional adjustment of the shape of the layer deposited on the fin ([0051]: “the resulting second layer…vertical thickness…greater than width… the epitaxial growth process together with the in-situ etching process can form second layer 124B having a side surface S124B substantially perpendicular to substrate 102, because the epitaxial growth process together with the etching process has a lower growth rate and a higher etching rate over the (110) crystal plane”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed growth rate configuration because it would enable additional adjustment of the shape of the deposited layer. MPEP 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 2, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein a concentration of hydrogen gas (H2) ([0028]: “a carrier gas, such as hydrogen”) in the one or more process gases is 25% or less by flow rate ([0028]: “a ratio of TCS precursor flow rate to carrier gas flow rate is between about 1:50 and about 1:1”. See additional remarks below).
Bao teaches “the one or more process gases” includes:
Trichlorosilane (TCS) with a flow rate between 100-10,000 sccm ([0022]: “between about 100 sccm and about 10,000 sccm”).
Another process gas with a flow rate between 0.1-100 sccm ([0024]: “between about 0.1 sccm and about 100 sccm”).
Hydrochloric acid with a flow rate between 0.1-100 sccm ([0025]: “between about 0.1 sccm and about 100 sccm”).
Hydrogen with a flow rate between 1000-100,000 sccm ([0028]: “a flow rate of between about 1 standard liter per minute (SLM) to about 100 SLM”).
Choosing the following exemplary flow rates for the process gasses would arrive at the claimed concentration, and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have predictable results because these values are within the disclosed ranges:
Process gas flow rate
Trichlorosilane = 8000 sccm
Another process gas = 100 sccm
HCl = 100 sccm
Hydrogen = 400 sccm
Process gas resultant concentration
TCS:Another gas:HCl:Hydrogen is 8000:100:100:400 sccm
TCS:Another gas:HCl:Hydrogen is 93%:1%:1%:5%
Hydrogen is 5% which is less than 25% and squarely within the claimed range.
Further as to claim 2, with respect to the concentration of hydrogen gas, i.e. “wherein a concentration of hydrogen gas (H2) in the one or more process gases is 25% or less by flow rate”. Although Bao in view of More failed to explicitly disclose the claimed concentration, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the concentration claimed and the Prior Art includes a plurality of values capable of meeting the claimed “concentration of hydrogen gas”, i.e., “25% or less by flow rate”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable gas flow rates, and therefore concentrations (i.e. numerical values) for the hydrogen gas.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentration 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the concentration of hydrogen gas (H2) in the one or more process gases is 5% or less (the values cited in the claim 2 rejection result in a concentration of 5% or less, and are applied in the same way here)
Regarding claim 4, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein a flow rate of hydrogen gas ([0028]: “hydrogen”) in the one or more process gases is 5 slm or less ([0028]: “between about 1 standard liter per minute (SLM) to about 100 SLM” overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), further comprising controlling a pressure in the processing chamber, wherein the pressure is less than 400 Torr ([0034]: “between about 10 Torr and about 450 Torr” overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of More discloses the method of claim 5 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein the pressure is less than 100 Torr ([0034]: “between about 10 Torr and about 450 Torr” overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 7, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein the TCS is flowed at a flow rate within a range of 7,000 sccm to 9,000 sccm ([0022]: “between about 100 sccm and about 10,000 sccm” overlaps the claimed range).
Regarding claim 9, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein the hydrochloric acid is flowed at a flow rate within a range of 100 sccm to 150 sccm ([0025]: “between about 0.1 sccm and about 100 sccm” overlaps the claimed range).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of More as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20250113517 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bao in view of More discloses the method of claim 1 (Bao: Fig. 1), wherein the one or more process gases further comprise phosphine ([0029]: “phosphine”), and the phosphine is flowed at a flow rate ([0029]: “between about 0.1 sccm and about 100 sccm”) within a range of 2,700 sccm to 3,000 sccm.
Bao in view of More fails to teach “the phosphine is flowed at a flow rate within a range of 2,700 sccm to 3,000 sccm” because Bao teaches a range lower than the claimed range.
Wang discloses a substantially similar method, wherein the one or more process gases further comprise phosphine ([0055]: “PH3”), and the phosphine is flowed at a flow rate within a range of 2,700 sccm to 3,000 sccm ([0055]: “a flowrate of the n-type dopant precursor gas can be about 0.001 sccm to about 5000 sccm”). Modifying the phosphine flow rate in the method of Bao in view of More by including the range disclosed by Wang would arrive at the claimed method. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had predictable results doing so because: 1) the range disclosed by Wang completely encompasses the range disclosed by Bao (Bao: [0029]: “between about 0.1 sccm and about 100 sccm”; Wang: [0055]: “about 0.001sccm to about 5000 sccm”); and 2) these ranges are used in similar process gas configurations (Bao: [0029]: “the halogenated silicon precursor…combined with the non-silicon based silicon etching precursor and a phosphorus precursor, such as phosphine”; Wang: [0055]: “the carrier gas, the precursor gas, the etching gas, and an n-type dopant precursor gas”).
Further as to claim 8, with respect to the phosphine flow rate, i.e. “within a range of 2,700 sccm to 3,000 sccm”. Although Bao in view of More failed to explicitly disclose the claimed flow rate, it has been held that numerical differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such flow rate range is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality (see paragraph below) of the flow rate claimed and the Prior Art includes a plurality of values capable of meeting the claimed “flow rate”, i.e., “within a range of 2,700 sccm to 3,000 sccm”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable gas flow rates (i.e. numerical values) for the phosphine.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed flow rate 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights