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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15-20 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. Claims 15-20 are claiming a system (apparatus) not method and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rue et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No.2012/0056088 A1).
[Re claim 15] Rue discloses a system controller (219) in communication with one or more process chambers (226) and an ion processing tool within the one or more process chambers, the system controller comprising a processor (242) and a memory storing (221) instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations (see figure 10 and paragraph [0059]-[0064],). The limitations “forming a gate-all-around (GAA) stack comprising a plurality of alternating first layers and second layers, wherein the GAA stack is positioned atop a bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) layer; forming a source/drain (S/D) cavity by etching the plurality of alternating first layers and second layers; forming an inner spacer in the S/D cavity, adjacent the plurality of alternating first layers and second layers; and performing, using the ion processing tool, an implant by directing ions to the GAA stack, through the S/D cavity, wherein the implant is performed at a temperature greater than 500° Celsius, and wherein a S/D material is formed in the S/D cavity following the implant” are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the claimed apparatus and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
[Re claim 16] Rue discloses the system wherein the ion processing tool (210) (see figure 10 and paragraph [0057]-[0058]). The limitation “operable to direct the ions into the inner spacer and into the first layers of the plurality of alternating first layers and second layers” are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the claimed apparatus and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
[Re claim 17] Rue discloses the system wherein the ion processing tool is beamline tool (218) (see paragraph [0059]-[0060]). The limitation “operable to direct the ions into the GAA stack at a non-zero angle relative to a plane defined by a sidewall surface of the inner spacer, and wherein the ions are boron ions” are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the claimed apparatus and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
[Re claim 18] Rue discloses the system wherein the ion processing tool is a plasma doping tool operable to perform a plasma doping process (see paragraph [0051]-[0052]).
[Re claim 19] Rue discloses the system wherein the ion processing tool (210) (see figure 10 and paragraph [0057]-[0058]). The limitation “operable to direct the ions to the GAA stack before or after formation of the BDI layer” are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the claimed apparatus and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
[Re claim 20] Rue discloses the system comprising deposition chamber (210) (see figure 10 and paragraph [0057]-[0058]). The limitation “the BDI layer comprises one or more of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, or a high-k material” are limitations directed to details of the device being made by the claimed apparatus and therefore do not impart significant patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 allowable because of the closest prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the method, the step of performing an implant by directing ions to the GAA stack, through the S/D cavity, wherein the implant is performed at a temperature greater than 500° Celsius; and forming a S/D material in the S/D cavity following the implant. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 8 allowable because of the closest prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the method, the step of performing an implant by directing ions to the inner spacer, through the S/D cavity, wherein the implant is performed at a temperature greater than 500° Celsius; and forming a S/D material in the S/D cavity following the implant. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 2-7 and 8-14 depend on claim 1 or 8 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1982. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
/KYOUNG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights