DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-21 are pending before the Office for review.
In the response field July 8, 2026:
Claim 1 was amended.
Claim 15 was canceled.
No new matter is present.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 8, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 October 13, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-15 in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups are not patentable distinct inventions. It is Applicant’s position that the claimed method and apparatus share common structural and functional features and are not distinct in terms of inventive concept. It is Applicant’s position that when an apparatus is disclosed solely or carrying out a claimed method, and the apparatus claims do not include additional features rendering them patentably distinct from the method, unity of invention exists, and restriction is improper. This is not found persuasive because it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant’s apparatus not specifically adapted for Applicant’s method. In addition, Applicant’s claimed apparatus can be used to practice another materially different process. Process and apparatus for its practice can be shown to be distinct inventions, if either or both of the following can be shown: (A) that the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand; or (B) that the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. MPEP 806.05(e) In addition, searching both groups would be a serious search and examination burden on the Examiner as the claims have separate and distinct classification; require addition fields of search which do not overlap and are not mere variations of each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0372118) in view of LIU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0367625) and KUMAR et al (Optimizing the Isotropic Etching Nature and Etch Profile of Si, Ge and Si.08Ge0.2 by Controlling CF4 Atmosphere with Ar and O2 Additives in ICP).
With regards to claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for fabrication of a semiconductor structure, which comprises: providing a semiconductor structure which includes a plurality of first layers and a plurality of second layers (504a, 504b), wherein each of the first layers lies parallelly on each of the second layers and the first layer comprises a first material and the second layer comprises a second material (Figure 5A Paragraphs [0061]-[0065]); performing a first etching process in a first direction (etching 516) onto a surface of the semiconductor structure to form a plurality of fin structures with sidewall surfaces of the first material and the second material (Figure 5B Paragraphs [0069]-[0073]); and performing a second etching process onto the sidewall surfaces to remove the second layers and form a plurality of voids, wherein the second etching process has an etching selectivity between the first material and the second material (Figure 5C1 Paragraphs [0074]-[0077]) and wherein the second etching process is performed by radical species.(Paragraphs [0072], [0077] discloses generating a plasma).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose performing a first etching process by irradiating neutral beam in a first direction onto a surface of the semiconductor structure to form a plurality of fin structures with sidewall surfaces of the first material and the second material wherein the first etching process is an anisotropic etching and performing a second etching process wherein the second etching process is an isotropic etching.
Liu discloses a method of fabrication of a semiconductor structure which comprises; providing a semiconductor structure which includes a plurality of first layer and second layer (Figure 2 layers 56 and 54) performing a first etching process by an anisotropic etching by reactive ion etching, neutral beam etching or the like or combinations thereof (Figure 3 Paragraphs [0021]-[0028]) rendering obvious irradiating neutral beam in a first direction onto a surface of the semiconductor structure to form a plurality of fin structures (62) with sidewall surfaces of the first material and the second material (Figure 3) wherein the first etching process is an anisotropic etching (Paragraph [0028]), and performing a second lateral etching process to form sidewall recess (Paragraph [0046] Figure 9A) the second etching process is an isotropic etching.(Paragraph [0046]). Kumar discloses a method of isotropic etching germanium selective to silicon using an inductively coupled plasma system; with a fixed ICP bias power; wherein the anisotropy and undercut is improved to selectively etch germaniums (Page 178, 181-182 Figure 10). As such Zhang as modified by Liu and Kumar render obvious performing a first etching process by irradiating neutral beam in a first direction onto a surface of the semiconductor structure to form a plurality of fin structures with sidewall surfaces of the first material and the second material wherein the first etching process is an anisotropic etching and performing a second etching process wherein the second etching process is an isotropic etching.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang to include the neutral beam etching and isotropic etching of Liu because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the neutral beam etching as rendered obvious by Liu. MPEP 2143D
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Zhang to include the isotropic etching of Kumar because the reference of Kumar teaches that such etching allows for lateral etching with high selectivity (Pages 181-182) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the isotropic etching as rendered obvious by Kumar. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the first material is silicon.(Zhang Paragraph [0077] layer 504b)
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the second material comprises germanium. (Zhang Paragraph [0077] layer 504a).
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Zhang discloses wherein layer 504b comprise epi-SI and wherein layer 504a comprises SiGe wherein the SiGe layer is selectively etch relative to Si (Zhang Paragraphs [0064]-[0065], [0077])) which renders obvious wherein the higher content of germanium in the second material, the better etching selectivity between the first material and the second material, wherein the content of germanium contained in the second material is in a range between more than 0% and 50.
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the second material is silicon germanium. (Zhang Paragraph [0077]
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the first direction is substantially vertical to the surface of the semiconductor structure to form the fin structures, wherein the sidewall surfaces are substantially parallel to the first direction. (Zhang Figure 5B Paragraphs [0066, [0069] discloses forming an opening have a predetermined width wherein the opening in the pattern is transferred into the opening 516 in the layers wherein etching is conducted until the desired depth is reached).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the second etching process is performed in a second direction to form the voids, wherein the second direction is substantially vertical to the first direction.(Zhang Paragraphs [0074]-[0077] discloses performing lateral etching to remove or substantially remove a layer of material).
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Zhang discloses wherein a lateral etching process is performed to selectively remove or partial remove one type of material from the substrate (Zhang Paragraph [0074]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the etching rate to amount including an etching rate of the second layer that is at least 10 times greater than an etching rare of the first layers in order to remove or partial selectively remove one type of material from the substrate as taught by the modified teachings of Zhang (Zhang Paragraph [0074], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the etching rate of the second layers is controlled by varying a parameter value which is at least one selected from a group consisting of a content of germanium contained in the second material, a kind of the radical species, a flowing rate of the radical species, and a temperature of the fin structures. (Zhang Paragraphs [0074]-[0078] discloses selectively between layers can be adjust during the lateral etch by providing a germanium containing material; suitable precursor gases which are used to generate the plasma; flow rate ratio between gases; temperature during lateral etching process).
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein the radical species comprise oxygen radical, nitrogen radical, fluorine radical, chlorine radical and hydrogen radical. (Zhang Paragraph [0077]).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious wherein a second composition of gas in which the fluorine radical is generated is at least one selected from a group consisting of NF3.(Liu Paragraph [0054]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0372118) in view of LIU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0367625) and KUMAR et al (Optimizing the Isotropic Etching Nature and Etch Profile of Si, Ge and Si.08Ge0.2 by Controlling CF4 Atmosphere with Ar and O2 Additives in ICP), as applied to claims 1-7 and 11-14, in further view of LEE et al (Defect-free Germanium Etching for 3D Fin MOSFET using Neutral Beam Etching).
With regards to claims 8-9, the modified teachings of Zhang renders obvious Applicant’s claim 1.
However the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose wherein an acceleration energy of the neutral beam performed onto the surface of the semiconductor structure is controlled by a radio frequency electric field in a range between 400 kHz and 800 kHz wherein the neutral beam is generated in a first composition of gas, wherein the first composition of gas comprises halogen.
Lee discloses a method of processing a semiconductor substrate comprising etching a fin structure comprising etching a germanium containing fin structure with a neutral beam at a radio frequency of 600 kHz (Page 816) using a composition gas comprising chloride (Pages 816-817) which renders obvious wherein an acceleration energy of the neutral beam performed onto the surface of the semiconductor structure is controlled by a radio frequency electric field in a range between 400 kHz and 800 kHz wherein the neutral beam is generated in a first composition of gas, wherein the first composition of gas comprises halogen. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified method of Zhang to include the neutral beam etching of Lee because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the neutral beam etching as rendered obvious by Lee. MPEP 2143D
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of Applicant’s response, filed July 7, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 and 11-14 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not explicitly disclose a second etching process is isotropic etching performed by a radical species is found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KUMAR et al (Optimizing the Isotropic Etching Nature and Etch Profile of Si, Ge and Si.08Ge0.2 by Controlling CF4 Atmosphere with Ar and O2 Additives in ICP).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights