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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, -8, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Kajbafvala et al. (hereinafter Kajbafvala , US 2022/0282370). In regards to independent claim 1 , Kajbafvala teaches a material layer deposition method, comprising: supporting one and only one substrate in a chamber arrangement (Fig. 1 chamber 102 is shown with one substrate 10) ; exposing the substrate to a first material layer precursor and a second material layer precursor (Fig 2, Item 220, [0049]) ; forming a first material layer overlaying the substrate using the first material layer precursor and the second material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 230, [0049]) ; exposing the first material layer to the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 250, [0049], the second silicon precursor may be the same as the first silicon precursor , [0069]) ; forming a second material layer onto the first material layer using the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2 Item 260, [0049]) ; wherein the second material layer precursor includes a germanium-containing material layer precursor ([0045], “ The germanium precursor source 114 includes a germanium precursor 144 and is connected to the reaction chamber 102 ”) ; and wherein the first material layer precursor includes at least one of trisilane (Si3H8) and tetrasilane (Si4H10) ([0043], “ The hydrogenated first silicon precursor may be … trisilane (Si.sub.3H.sub.8), and tetrasilane (Si.sub.4H.sub.10) ” ) . In regards to dependent claim 2 , Ka jbafvala teaches wherein the first material layer precursor consists essentially of trisilane (Si3H8). ([0043], “ The hydrogenated first silicon precursor may be … trisilane (Si.sub.3H.sub.8), and tetrasilane (Si.sub.4H.sub.10) ”). In regards to dependent claim 3 , Kajbafvala teaches wherein the first material layer precursor consists essentially of tetrasilane (Si4H10). ([0043], “ The hydrogenated first silicon precursor may be … trisilane (Si.sub.3H.sub.8), and tetrasilane (Si.sub.4H.sub.10) ”). In regards to dependent claim 4 , Ka jbafvala teaches further comprising co-flowing the first material layer precursor with a carrier/diluent fluid including nitrogen (N2) gas ([0019]) . In regards to dependent claim 5 , Kajbafvala teaches : maintaining a first material layer deposition pressure within the chamber arrangement that is between about 1 Torr and about 50 Torr during forming the first material layer onto the substrate; and maintaining a second material layer deposition pressure within the chamber arrangement that is between about 1 Torr and about 50 Torr during forming the second material layer onto the first material layer ( Kajvavfvala , [0053]) . In regards to dependent claim 6 , Kajbafvala teaches : maintaining the substrate at a first material layer deposition temperature that is between about 500 degrees Celsius and about 800 degrees Celsius during forming the first material layer overlaying the substrate; and maintaining the substrate and the first material layer at a second material layer deposition temperature that is between about 500 degrees Celsius and about 800 degrees Celsius during forming the second material layer onto the first material layer. ( Kajbafvala , [0052]) In regards to dependent claim 7 , Kajbafvala teaches : wherein forming the first material layer onto the substrate comprises forming the first material layer at a first material layer deposition rate that is between about 12 angstroms per second and about 60 angstroms per second ( Kajbafvala , [005 7 ]) . In regards to dependent claim 8 , Kajbafvala teaches : wherein forming the second material layer onto the substrate comprises forming the second material layer at a second material layer deposition rate that is between about 5 angstroms per second and about 40 angstroms per second ( Kajbafvala , [00 67 ]) . In regards to in dependent claim 19 , Kajbafvala teaches a semiconductor processing system, comprising: a precursor arrangement configured to provide a first material layer precursor and a second material layer precursor (Fig 2, Item 220, [0049]) , wherein the second material layer precursor includes a germanium-containing material layer precursor ([0045], “ The germanium precursor source 114 includes a germanium precursor 144 and is connected to the reaction chamber 102 ”) , and wherein the first material layer precursor includes at least one of trisilane (Si3H8) and tetrasilane (Si4H10) ([0043], “ The hydrogenated first silicon precursor may be … trisilane (Si.sub.3H.sub.8), and tetrasilane (Si.sub.4H.sub.10) ) ; a chamber arrangement (102) connected to the precursor arrangement (110, 114) and housing a substrate support (108) , the substrate supported support for rotation about a rotation axis (108) ; and a controller operably connected to the chamber arrangement and the precursor delivery arrangement, the controller include a processor disposed in communication with a memory, the memory including a non-transitory machine-readable medium having a plurality of program modules containing instructions that, when read by the processor, cause the processor to (Fig. 1, [0048], The controller 130, the processor 150, The memory 156 ) : support one and only one substrate within the chamber arrangement (Fig. 1 chamber 102 is shown with one substrate 10); expose the substrate to a first material layer precursor and a second material layer precursor (Fig 2, Item 220, [0049]); form a first material layer overlaying the substrate using the first material layer precursor and the second material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 230, [0049]); expose the first material layer to the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 250, [0049], the second silicon precursor may be the same as the first silicon precursor , [0069]); and form a second material layer onto the first material layer using the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2 Item 260, [0049]) . In regards to in dependent claim 20 , Kajbafvala teaches a computer program product, comprising: a non-transitory machine-readable medium having a plurality of program modules recorded thereon containing instructions that, when read by a processor, cause the processor to execute operations to (Fig. 1, [0048], The controller 130, the processor 150, The memory 156 , program modules 158 ) : support one and only one substrate in a chamber arrangement of a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 1 chamber 102 is shown with one substrate 10); expose the substrate to a first material layer precursor and a second material layer precursor provided by a precursor delivery arrangement connected to the chamber arrangement (Fig 2, Item 220, [0049]) ; form a first material layer overlaying the substrate using the first material layer precursor and the second material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 230, [0049]) ; expose the first material layer to the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2, 250, [0049], the second silicon precursor may be the same as the first silicon precursor , [0069]); form a second material layer onto the first material layer using the first material layer precursor (Fig. 2 Item 260, [0049]); wherein the second material layer precursor includes a germanium-containing material layer precursor ([0045], “ The germanium precursor source 114 includes a germanium precursor 144 and is connected to the reaction chamber 102 ”) ; and wherein the first material layer precursor includes at least one of trisilane (Si3H8) and tetrasilane (Si4H10) ([0043], “ The hydrogenated first silicon precursor may be … trisilane (Si.sub.3H.sub.8), and tetrasilane (Si.sub.4H.sub.10) ). 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. Claim(s) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajbafvala in view of Kirscheneiter et al. (hereinafter US 2024/0038531). In regards to dependent claim 15, Kirshceneiter teaches further comprising forming a 3D DRAM semiconductor device using the first material layer and the second material layer. ( Kirscheneiter , [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kajbafvala and Kirshceneiter before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon germanium film taught by Kajbafvala to include creating a 3D Dram of Kirshceneiter in order to obtain a silicon germanium film used in stacks of a 3D DRAM . One would have been motivated to make such a combination because for a higher yield DRAM by reducing defects and size of the memory . In regards to dependent claim 1 6 , Kirshceneiter teaches a material layer stack comprising between 20 material layer pairs and 400 material layer pairs overlaying a substrate, wherein each of the between 20 material layer pairs and 400 material layer pairs includes a first material layer and a second material layer deposited using the material layer deposition method of claim 1 ( Kirshceneiter , [0072]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kajbafvala and Kirshceneiter before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon germanium film taught by Kajbafvala to include creating a 3D Dram of Kirshceneiter in order to obtain a silicon germanium film used in stacks of a 3D DRAM . One would have been motivated to make such a combination because for a higher yield DRAM by reducing defects and size of the memory . In regards to dependent claim 1 7 , Kirshceneiter teaches wherein the first material layer and the second material layer have thicknesses that are between about 5 nanometers and about 50 nanometers, wherein the first material layers have a within-material layer thickness variation that is between about 1 nanometer and about 0.2 nanometers, and wherein the second material layers have a within-material layer thickness variation that is between about 2 nanometers and about 0.4 nanometers. ( Kirshceneiter , [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kajbafvala and Kirshceneiter before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the silicon germanium film taught by Kajbafvala to include creating a 3D Dram of Kirshceneiter in order to obtain a silicon germanium film used in stacks of a 3D DRAM . One would have been motivated to make such a combination because for a higher yield DRAM by reducing defects and size of the memory . Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “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.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses 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 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990). In regards to dependent claim 1 8 , Kirshceneiter teaches wherein the first material layers of the between 20 material layer pairs and 400 material layer pairs have layer-to-layer thickness variation that is less than about 2 nanometers, and the second material layers of the between 20 material layer pairs and the 400 material layer pairs have layer-to-layer thickness variation that is less than about 10 nanometers. ( Kirshceneiter , [0072]). Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “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.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397 Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses 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 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-14 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: The prior art fails to disclose or teach an obvious combination of the following limitations when taken with the claim as a whole: Claim 9: comparing the differential to a predetermined temperature differential; and throttling heat communicated into the chamber arrangement when the differential is greater than the predetermined temperature differential. Claim 10-14 depend upon an allowable claim; therefore, they are allowable. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3304 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Davienne Monbleau can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1945 . 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 C TRAPANESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812