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 .
Response to Arguments
The previously issued claim objections are hereby withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
The previously issued 112b rejections as to claims 11-13 are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
The Applicant’s arguments Applicant’s arguments as to the Double Patenting rejection of Independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Double Patenting rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments Applicant’s arguments as to the Double Patenting Rejection of Independent claims 9 and 16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The amended language is still taught by the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,831.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of Independent claims 1 and 9 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 have been carefully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 16 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 have been carefully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The instant Non Final Rejection replaces the previous Non Final Rejection mailed on 04/06/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11854831 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated in the table below:
Application # 18516431
Patent # US 11854831 B2
Claim 9 - A method, comprising:
depositing, in a chamber, a first epitaxial layer on a substrate, wherein the depositing the first epitaxial layer comprises:
epitaxially growing a first portion of the first epitaxial layer on the substrate with a precursor;
cleaning the substrate and the chamber with a first etching gas; and
epitaxially growing a second portion of the first epitaxial layer with the precursor,
wherein the first portion and the second portion have a same composition;
etching a portion of the first epitaxial layer with a second etching gas;
depositing, on the first epitaxial layer, a second epitaxial layer,
wherein depositing the second epitaxial layer comprises cleaning the substrate with a second number of flushes of the first etching gas, the second number of flushes being different from the first number of flushes.
Claim 9 - A method, comprising:
depositing, on a substrate in a chamber, a first epitaxial layer comprising:
epitaxially growing a first portion of the first epitaxial layer with a precursor;
cleaning the substrate and the chamber with a first etching gas; and
epitaxially growing a second portion of the first epitaxial layer with the precursor,
wherein the first portion and the second portion have a same composition;
etching a portion of the first epitaxial layer with a second etching gas, wherein a flow rate of the second etching gas is higher than a flow rate of the first etching gas; and
depositing, on the first epitaxial layer, a second epitaxial layer with a different composition from the first epitaxial layer.
Claim 11 - The method of claim 9, wherein the depositing the second epitaxial layer comprises cleaning the substrate and the chamber with a plurality of flushes of the first etching gas, and wherein a number of the plurality of flushes is greater than a number of flushes with the first etching gas during depositing the first epitaxial layer.
Claim 16 - A method, comprising:
forming a first fin structure and a second fin structure on a substrate;
etching a portion of the first and second fin structures;
epitaxially growing a first portion of a first epitaxial layer on the etched first and second fin structures with a precursor;
cleaning the substrate with a first etching gas;
epitaxially growing a second portion of the first epitaxial layer with the precursor, wherein the first and second portions have a same composition; and
etching a third portion of the first epitaxial layer with a second etching gas, wherein a flow rate of the second etching gas is higher than a flow rate of the first etching gas; and
epitaxially growing, on the first epitaxial layer, a second epitaxial layer having a different composition from the first epitaxial layer.
Claim 16 - A method, comprising:
forming a first fin structure and a second fin structure on a substrate;
etching a portion of the first and second fin structures; and
forming a source/drain (S/D) epitaxial structure on the etched first and second fin structures, wherein the forming the S/D epitaxial structure comprises:
epitaxially growing a first portion of a first epitaxial layer in a chamber with a precursor;
cleaning the substrate and the chamber with a first etching gas;
epitaxially growing a second portion of the first epitaxial layer with the precursor, wherein the first and second portions have a same composition; and
etching a third portion of the first epitaxial layer with a second etching gas, wherein a flow rate of the second etching gas is higher than a flow rate of the first etching gas.
Claim 17 - The method of claim 16, further comprising depositing, on the first epitaxial layer, a second epitaxial layer with a different composition from the first epitaxial layer.
Claims 9-20 of the instant application correspond to claims 9-20 of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou et al. (US 2018/0175046), hereafter “Chiou”, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 2020/0168735 A1), hereafter Yu.
As to claim 16, Chiou teaches a method, comprising:
forming a first fin structure and a second fin structure (222A, Fig. 3A, ⁋ [0023]) on a substrate (210, Fig. 3A, ⁋ [0021]);
etching a portion of the first and second fin structures (Fig. 3C, ⁋ [0030]);
epitaxially growing a first portion (see annotated Fig. 3D below) of a first epitaxial layer on the etched first and second fin structures with a precursor (⁋ [0031], “The SEG process uses gaseous precursors…”);
cleaning the substrate with a first etching gas (⁋⁋ [0017], [0033], “cyclic deposition etch”);
epitaxially growing a second portion (see annotated Fig. 3D) of the first epitaxial layer with the precursor (⁋ [0031], “The SEG process uses gaseous precursors…”), wherein the first and second portions have a same composition (both are within 255A); and
etching a third portion of the first epitaxial layer with a second etching gas (⁋ [0035]), wherein a flow rate of the second etching gas (⁋ [0035, “100 sccm to about 1,000 sccm”) is higher than a flow rate of the first etching gas (⁋ [0033], “20 sccm to about 100 sccm”).
Chiou fails to teach epitaxially growing, on the first epitaxial layer, a second epitaxial layer having a different composition from the first epitaxial layer.
Yu teaches a similar method wherein a first epitaxial layer (L1) and second epitaxial layer (L2) have a P type doping with different compositions (Fig. 6A, ⁋ [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of epitaxial layers having different dopant concentrations as taught by Yu into the device of Chiou to ensure that both layers have different etching selectivity. One skilled in the art would understand different etching selectivity produces a better yield, and helps with shape formation. Additionally, a higher etch selectivity in top epitaxial layers can protect lower epitaxial layers from being damaged in the etching process (⁋ [0046]).
As to claim 17, Chiou in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 16, Yu further teaches wherein the first epitaxial layer comprises a dopant at a first concentration (⁋ [0028], 5×1020 to about 5×1021 atoms/cm−3), and wherein a second epitaxial layer comprises the dopant at a second concentration (5×1021 to about 5×1022 atoms/cm−3) greater than the first concentration
PNG
media_image1.png
608
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou in view of Yu, as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 10515951), hereafter “Chang”.
As to claim 19, Chiou in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 17, but fails to teach further comprising etching the second epitaxial layer with a third etching gas comprising a silicon-based precursor.
Chang taches a similar epitaxial growth process where a selective etching process is implemented, wherein an epitaxial layer (201, Fig. 2E, Col. 11, Lines 3-5) is etched by an etchant containing a silicon-based precursor (SiH4, Col. 11, Lines 29-34)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of etching the epitaxial layer taught by Chang into the epitaxial growth process as taught by Chiou and Yu for the benefit of modifying the shape of the merged source/drain regions (Col. 11, Lines 5-8). Additionally larger sized source/drain region can be provided which further allows for a reduction in the resistance of the channel and the parasitic resistance, allowing for a device boost (Col. 12, Lines 51-54).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou in view of Yu, as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Kim (US 7588980), hereafter “Kim ‘980”.
As to claim 20, Chiou in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first etching gas comprises hydrogen chloride (HCl) (⁋ [0033]), but fails to teach wherein a time of cleaning the substrate with the first etching gas ranges from about 3s to about 10s.
Kim ‘980 teaches a method of forming an epitaxial layer on a substrate wherein HCl and/or Cl2 (same material used by Chiou) is flowed into a process chamber (Col. 4, Lines 66-67) for about 5 to 10 seconds (Col. 5, Lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the time taught by Kim ‘980 into the process of Chiou and Yu as they both teach the same materials being utilized for the same function therefore it would have been obvious to use the time for its intended purpose.
Additionally, the Examiner notes Applicant has not specified a criticality to the range.
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 or variable are critical. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are indicated allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 1 and 9, prior arts Chiou in view of Lee are the closest prior arts and originally presented to teach the method of claims 1 and 9 (see for example the Office Action mailed on 04/06/2026), however, they fail to teach the amended language of “wherein depositing the second epitaxial layer comprises cleaning the substrate with a second number of flushes of the first etching gas, the second number of flushes being different from the first number of flushes”.
Claim 18 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/CARNELL HUNTER III/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights