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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to claim 16 based upon the amendments to claim 16.
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) 1-6, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al. (US 8,853,060 B1) (“Lai”), in view of Suzuki et al., “Epitaxial growth of Si-Ge layers on Si substrate by plasma dissociation of SiH4 and GeH4 mixture”, Journal of Applied Physics, 54. 6385-6389 (1983) (“Suzuki”), in view of Lau et al. (US 2019/0127851 A1) (“Lau”).
Examiner Note: How the references will be used.
Lau: teaches the epitaxial machine (e.g. the chamber).
Suzuki teaches the process parameters for epitaxial growth of SiGe.
Lai teaches the different layers of SiGe and additional process parameters.
Examiner will be performing claim matching in line as the claim itself is a combination of the device used in the method (the chamber) and the process parameters. Lai will be the primary reference, and then Suzuki would fill in the missing process steps of Lai, and the entire process of Lai and Suzuki would be performed in the device of Lau.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the above-mentioned references because in Lai does not teach all the necessary steps to epitaxially form SiGe and SiB. Suzuki forms SiGe and fills in the gaps of Lai. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to another reference (Suzuki) to teach the missing process steps. Further, neither Suzuki nor Lai teach the specifics of the device used to form the SiGe and SiB epitaxial layers in. Therefore, one would look to another reference to teach the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned prior art references.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of the prior art teaches:
seating a substrate (Lau 202) on a substrate support (Lau 206) disposed in a chamber body (Lau 200),
the chamber body (Lau 200) having an upper wall (Lau 208) and a lower wall (Lau bottom of 210);
heating the substrate to a deposition temperature (Suzuki page 6386, col. 1 at ¶ 2) employing at least an upper heater element array (Lau 204) supported above the upper wall of the chamber body (Lau 208);
providing a controller (Lau 247) in communication with at least the upper heater element array (Lau 204; where Lau 247 is the controller for the entire device Lau 200. Therefore, it will be in communication with Lau 204),
wherein the controller (Lau 247) throttles power (¶ 0004, where the reference is directed to better temperature control of the substate. It would be obvious that this would include throttling power to the heater) to at least the upper heater element array (Lau 204) according to a set of optical temperature measurements communicated to the controller from at least a first pyrometer (Lau 104/353/270) and a second pyrometer (Lau 104/353/270),
the first pyrometer (Lau 104/353/270) and the second pyrometer (Lau 104/353/270) being supported above the upper heater element (Lau 204) array and being optically (¶¶ 0025, and 33) coupled to a surface of the substrate over a first acquisition area (Lau a first area containing Lau 104/353/270) and a second acquisition area (Lau a second area containing Lau 104/353/270),
wherein the second acquisition area is radially distal from the first acquisition area (Lau, where there are a plurality of second area distal to at least one of Lau 104/353/270); and
depositing a multilayer structure over the substrate employing a multiphase deposition process which includes at least three deposition phases comprising (The multilayer structure which employs the multiphase deposition process with deposition steps is detailed below);
epitaxially depositing a first SiGe:B layer over the substrate during a first deposition phase (Lai 150; Lai col. 4 at lines 27-59, where a boron doped SiGe layer is formed);
epitaxially depositing a fully strained second SiGe:B layer directly over the first SiGe:B layer during a second deposition phase (Lai 162; Lai col. 6 at lines 14-37, where a strained boron doped SiGe layer is formed. Per Applicant’s disclosure to be “fully strained” can refer, not must refer, to an epitaxially deposited layer which is lattice matched to the underlying crystalline structure, and the first material is composed of a different material and/or composition than the second material, and has not undergone strain relaxation. Applicant ¶ 0054. Lai teaches this because the first layer is SiGe:B (note: SiGe:B in the art means silicon germanium doped with boron), and col. 4 at lines 58-60 teaches the first SiGe (150) can be doped with boron. Which creates SiGe:B. Lai also teaches the second SiGe (162) can be formed of silicon germanium, col. 6 at lines 20-25, and can be doped with boron, col. 6 at lines 30-35, thereby creating the second SiGe:B layer. Further, the first and second SiGe:B layers are obviously lattice matched as they are formed of the same material and deposited in the same/similar manner. Applicant asserts the second layer is not fully strained. However, Applicant offers no evidence (note: Attorney arguments are not evidence where evidence is needed. MPEP 2145(I)) to their assertion that the second SiGe:B is not fully strained. Further, there is no evidence that the alleged dislocations in Lai are “strain relaxation induced dislocations”. Further, there is no evidence that “fully strained” SiGe:B cannot have any dislocations. Based upon Applicant’s disclosure (see ¶ 0114) the only dislocations the SiGe:B cannot have are dislocations formed by strain relaxation. Secondly, as argued by Applicant the inclusion of the buffer layer of Lai reduces said dislocations. The term reduce includes diminishing to the point where any dislocations are functionally equivalent to having zero dislocations. Therefore, the attorney arguments are not persuasive as no evidence was presented to support this assertion.)
epitaxially depositing a Si:B layer directly on the fully strained second SiGe:B layer (Lai 164; Lai col. 6 at lines 38-53, where a Ge graded SiGe doped with boron may be formed. This reads on Si:B as the claim uses comprising language, and therefore, allows for other material besides Si:B such as Si:B with Ge, or SiGe:B; Turning to Applicant’s concern regarding the SiGe:B layers. Applicant asserts that Lai does not teach the layers are Si:B. However, as discussed above with SiGe:B, Si: B is known to means silicon doped with boron. Moving to the “comprising” argument. Under Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP 2111.03(I), the term “comprising” “is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Additionally, in Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) the board held that “comprising” leaves “the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”. Here the prior art teaches SiGe:B, which inherently means it teaches Si:B. The fact that it also contains Ge in major amounts is immaterial to the claim. If Applicant wants to exclude Ge from the Si:B claimed material Applicant will need to use the word “consisting of”. Therefore, Applicant’s is arguing that comprising should mean consisting of. This argument is inconsistent with the MPEP and caselaw. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.)
The prior art does not expressly teach:
wherein the boron concentration (atom/cm3) non-uniformity in the first SiGe:B layer, the fully strained second SiGe:B layer, and the Si:B layer is less than 3%.
However, based upon the disclosure this limitation does not appear to be critical nor does the disclosure indicate any unexpected results from the process of forming SiGe:B or Si:B. Further, there do not appear to be any steps directed to how the limitation above is performed. Therefore, Examiner will treat the above as an optimization of the doping process described Lau. It is a matter of optimization because the general conditions of forming SiGe:B are disclosed, it is not it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of boron in each layer as the amount of boron in each layer will affect the conductivity of said layer. Thus, optimization of the claim would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of the prior art teaches:
wherein the upper wall (Lau 208) of the chamber body extends longitudinally between an injection end (Lau where 251 is) and a longitudinally opposite exhaust end (Lau where 257 is), and
the lower wall (Lau 210) is below and parallel relative to the upper wall (Lau 208) (Lau 208 and 210 are relatively parallel).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the prior art teaches:
wherein the chamber body comprises an arcuate, or dome-like shape (This is shown at least in figure 2 of Lau).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the prior art teaches:
wherein the first SiGe:B layer has a germanium content (at-%) between 0.15 and 0.40 and the fully strained second SiGe:B layer has a germanium content (at-%) between 0.40 and 0.70 (Suzuki teaches that the germanium content of SiGe layers can contain between 0-12% Ge; pg. 6385, col. 2 at ¶ 1), and
wherein the first SiGe:B layer and the fully strained second SiGe:B layer have a germanium content (at-%) non-uniformity of less than 0.5% (This is obvious for the same reasons given in claim 1 concerning non-uniformity).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the prior art teaches:
wherein each of the first SiGe:B layer, the fully strained second SiGe:B layer, and the Si:B layer, have a thickness non-uniformity of less than 1 Angstrom (This claim is not directed to the total thickness, but the amount of non-uniformity of each of the above layers. This non-uniformity is rejected under the same rational presented in claim 1 above. Applicant will need to direct Examiner to where there is criticality or unexpected results arising from this limitation, and, where there is support for how this specific limitation is made. Based upon Examiner’s reading of the disclosure there is no disclosure of how any of the non-uniformity claims are explicitly made. Rather, it appears to be a result of generally forming the SiGe:B and Si:B layers.).
Regarding claims 6, and 20 the combination of the prior art teaches:
comprising at least, a first SiGe:B layer, a fully strained second SiGe:B layer disposed directly on the first SiGe:B layer, and a Si:B layer disposed directly on the fully strained second SiGe:B layer (this is shown in claim 1 and Lai explicitly shows this in figure 8),
wherein the multilayer structure forms at least a portion of a source or drain region of a semiconductor transistor device structure and is formed by the method of claim 1 (col. 3 at lines 29-40, where the disclosure is directed to forming source/drain regions of a transistor).
Claim(s) 7-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, in view of Suzuki, in view of Lau, in view of Sneh (US 2007/0051312 A1) (“Sneh”)
Examiner note: Sneh is being added to teach temperature control ranges commonly found in the device of Lau. It would have been obvious to combine Sneh with the previous prior art as Sneh evidences the optimal temperature control necessary in semiconductor processing.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art teaches:
seating a substrate (Lau 202) within a chamber body (Lau 206),
regulating a temperature profile across an entire upper surface of the substrate to a temperature non-uniformity of less than 1 °C, by employing a temperature feedback control procedure which operates during each individual phase of a multiphase deposition process (Lau 247 includes the controller for the device; Sneh ¶ 0007, and 0053 teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art who uses the device of Lau to perform a deposition process needs to have the temperature regulated to 0.1 degrees C. This temperature stability is necessary to form the device Lai as it is known that temperature of the growth of SiGe affects is mobility Susuki figure 7. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would want to control the temperature of the growth of the layers to a high accuracy in order to control the resulting characteristics of the device),
wherein the temperature feedback control procedure comprises (detailed below);
acquiring at least two independent sets of optical temperature measurements from at least two separate areas on the upper surface of the substrate(Lau 104/353/270; where there are a plurality of separate measurement areas designated by the different optical measurement devices); and throttling heating of the substrate according to a temperature differential or a temperature gradient across the upper surface of the substrate as determined by the at least two independent sets of optical temperature measurements (this is obvious based upon the level of control described by Sneh one of ordinary skill in the art desires. It would is obvious because one would not be able to control the temperature to such a degree without a feedback mechanism in the controller of Lau); and
depositing a multilayer structure employing the multiphase deposition process (detailed below),
wherein the multiphase deposition process includes at least three deposition phases comprising (detailed below);
introducing a first precursor gas into the chamber body to epitaxially deposit a first layer comprising silicon and germanium on the substrate during a first deposition phase (Lai 150; Lai col. 4 at lines 27-59, where a boron doped SiGe layer is formed);
introducing a second precursor gas into the chamber body to epitaxially deposition a second layer comprising silicon and germanium directly on the first layer during a second deposition phase (Lai 162; Lai col. 6 at lines 14-37, where a strained boron doped SiGe layer is formed); and
introducing a third precursor gas into the chamber body to epitaxially deposit a third layer comprising silicon directly on the second layer during a third deposition phase (Lai 164; Lai col. 6 at lines 38-53, where a Ge graded SiGe doped with boron may be formed. This reads on Si:B as the claim uses comprising language, and therefore, allows for other material besides Si:B such as Si:B with Ge, or SiGe:B).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art teaches:
wherein throttling the heating of the substrate further comprising, regulating power supplied to a upper heater element array disposed above the chamber body based on the at least two independent sets of optical temperature measurements (This is obvious because this is how one regulates a heating element when using temperature sensors. The general way one would do this is to take two independent measurements, average them out, and then send the resulting value to a PID (feedback controller) tuned heater to control the temperature. Another way one could do it is to have a temperature sensor per heater, and PID the respective temperature sensors’ heater. These and other techniques are well known in the semiconductor industry. In fact these are generally so well-known one can find these types of controls in consumer grade 3D printers using RepRap, Marlin, Klipper, or Kalico. 1 Therefore, this claim is obvious).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art teaches:
wherein the at least two independent sets of optical temperature measurements comprise at least a first set of optical temperature measurements (T1) acquired from a first acquisition area of the upper surface of the substrate by a first pyrometer supported above the upper heater elements array, and at least a second set of optical temperature measurements (T2) acquired from a second acquisition area of the upper surface of the substrate by a second pyrometer supported above the upper heater elements array, wherein the first acquisition area and the second acquisition area are separated from one another (this claim is obvious for the same reasons given in claim 1 concerning the first and second pyrometer).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art teaches:
wherein the first pyrometer is arranged along a first optical axis and the second pyrometer is arranged along a second optical axis, the second optical axis being radially outward of the first optical axis (This is rejected for the same reasons given in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art teaches:
wherein the first layer comprises a first SiGe layer and the second layer comprises a second SiGe layer, wherein the germanium content (at-%) in the second SiGe layer is greater than the germanium content (at-%) in the first SiGe layer (This is a matter of optimizing the Ge concentration in each of the layers Lau and Suzuki teach the general conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the amount of Ge in each of the layers in order to change the properties/characteristics of said layer. One of these characteristics is the amount of stress and/or the dislocations generated by said layers. Lai col. 4-5 at lines 5-19. Therefore, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Thus, optimization of the claim would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art teaches:
wherein the first SiGe layer, the second SiGe layer, and the third layer are all doped with boron, wherein the boron concentration (atom/cm3) in the third layer is greater than the boron concentration (atom/cm3) in the second SiGe layer, and the boron concentration in the second SiGe layer is greater than the boron concentration (atom/cm3) in the first SiGe layer (as shown in claims 1, 4-5 and 7 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill int eh art to optimize the amount of boron in each of the layers in order to optimize the conductivity, and other characteristics, of each of the layers).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art teaches:
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons given in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art teaches:
claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons given in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art teaches:
wherein the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas both comprise germane (GeH4), diborane (B2H6), hydrochloric acid (HCl) vapor, and at least one of silane (SiH4), disilane (Si2H6), and dichlorosilane (DCS) (Lai col. 4 at lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not expressly state:
wherein a flow rate ratio of germane (GeH4) flow rate to diborane (B2H6) flow rate into the chamber body during the both the first deposition phase and the second deposition phase remains substantially constant.
Lai teaches a flow rate of both GeH4 and B2H6. Lai does not teach keeping the flow rate constant, or adjusting the flow rate. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill int eh art to keep the flow rate constant during the first and second deposition phase as this would allow the material to be evenly deposited during the claimed phases. Additionally, or alternatively, it would have been obvious to try keeping the flow rate constant as this would make sense in the formation of the layer.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not expressly teach:
wherein deposition temperature remains substantially constant during the first deposition phase, the second deposition phase, and the third deposition phase, of the multiphase deposition process.
However, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would want the temperature to stay the same/constant during each deposition phase. This is because Suzuki teaches that the temperature will affect the characteristics of the resulting layer. See Suzuki figure 7.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 is directed to characteristics of the resulting layer. The prior art teach that one can adjust the Ge in each layer to adjust the amount of stress/strain in each layer. See claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the characteristics flowing from changing the stress in each layer would correspondingly change. As such claim 18 would have been an obvious characteristic for the amount of Ge in each SiGe layer.
Regarding claim 19,
wherein the multiphase deposition process is a selective deposition process (detailed in claim 7),
wherein the selective deposition process deposits the first layer, the second layer, and third layer (detailed in claim 7), over a crystalline material (Suzuki abstract where the substrate can be a (111) oriented Si substrate (i.e. crystalline) as opposed to depositing over a non-crystalline material, and
wherein the multiphase deposition process is uniformly selective over the entire upper surface of the substrate (the term “uniformly selective” means that one can selectively determine where to uniformly deposit the material. This term does not mean uniformly over the entire substrate, nor does it mean that where it is selectively deposited that it has to be uniform. Rather, this term means that anywhere one selects it is uniform, and it allows for multiple selections. These multiple selections might even be touching. Therefore, Examiner can choose infinitely tiny slices of each of the claimed layers and the deposition process will look uniform in these selective areas. Or, Examiner can choose selectively one small region where said layer is uniform. Thus, there are a plurality of areas in the prior art which are uniformly selective over the entire upper surface of the substrate as Examiner can choose any area where the claimed layers have been formed).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, in view of Suzuki, in view of Lau, in view of Sneh, in view of King et al. (US 5,281,552) (“King”).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach:
The precursor for the boron doping.
King teaches:
That for boron doped SiGe one of ordinary skill in the art could use diboron (B2H6). Col. 1 at lines 60-68.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that one would use diboron as it appears to be a well-known and routine chemical to dope SiGe with. Therefore, it is obvious that Lai would not mention it as they only need to describe that which is new and need not describe that which is routine in the art. Genentech, Inc.v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where “a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art.” MPEP 2161.01(III); See MPEP 2164.05(a).
Based upon King and based upon the prior art
wherein a flow rate ratio of germane (GeH4) flow rate to diborane (B2H6) flow rate into the chamber body during the both the first deposition phase and the second deposition phase remains substantially constant.
It would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art could have made both the germane and diborane gasses flow at a constat rate. This would obviously change the conductivity of each of the layers, and thus, would have been obvious for the same reason given in claim 12 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has responded to the arguments in-line with the rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 Examiner notes that Examiner at his home has done this exact thing, regulating power to a heating element using a temperature sensor on a self-built 3D printer. Examiner built a Voron V2.4 with a bed plate heater controlled by an SSR, using a bed temperature sensor. The software Klipper/Kalico used PID tuning to regulate the voltage going to the bed heat to control the temperature of the bed within 1 degree C. If Examiner can do this at home with off the shelf components it is obvious that it can be done in a semiconductor lab. Voron can be found at vorondesign.com; Klipper can be found at www.klipper3d.org/Config_checks.html?h=pid+tuning#calibrate-pid-settings (referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional%E2%80%93integral%E2%80%93derivative_controller); and Kalico can be found at https://github.com/KalicoCrew/kalico.
Prosecution Insights