DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Species A (methylamine group) in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-20 read on applicant’s elected Species A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “small molecule” in claim 1 (line 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small molecule” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the claim what specific size of the molecule that applicants consider as “small molecule”.
In line 1 of claim 5, the term “small molecule” is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
The term “small molecule species” in claim 9 (line 5) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small molecule species” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the claim what specific size of the molecule species that applicants consider as “small molecule species”.
In line 2 of claim 11, the term “small molecule species” is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
In lines 3-4 of claim 14, the term “small molecule species” (occur two times) is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
In line 9-10 of claim 15, the term “small molecule species” is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
In line 1 of claim 18, the term “small molecule species” is subjective, vague and indefinite for the same reason as discussed above.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they directly or indirectly depend on indefinite claim 1.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they directly or indirectly depend on indefinite claim 9.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because they directly or indirectly depend on indefinite claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 2019/0019681 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0078776 A1).
Note:
As to claim 1, Wong discloses a method comprising:
selectively oxidizing a silicon-germanium layer in a composite structure having the silicon-germanium layer (312b) and a silicon layer (312a) adjacent to the silicon-germanium layer (paragraph 0037, 0045-0053, Fig 2 step 206; Fig 3C-3D; and
exposing the composite structure to a first concentration of a small molecule comprising
As to claim 1, Wong fails to disclose exposing the composite structure to a small molecule comprising methylamine group and methylsilane group. However, Wong clearly discloses exposing the composite structure to a first concentration of molecule to form a layer. Kim discloses exposing the composite structure to a small molecule comprising a methyl amine group and methylsilane group (i.e. exposing the composite to tri-methyl-silyl-di-methyl-amine (TMSDMA)) in order form an passivation layer on the silicon layer (paragraph 0045, 0100-0104, 0128; Kim’s claim 14, 18; Note: tri-methyl-silyl-di-methyl-amine is also known as (Dimethylamino)trimethylsilane or TMSDMA; See evidence references Millipore Sigma “N,N-Dimethyltrimethylsilylamine” via https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/aldrich/226289?srsltid=AfmBOoosFW827HTdgkUXcd2IOyUL1BQpFYTrsYZ0jh79YFDYXnC6mrie ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wong in view of Kim by exposing the composite structure to a small molecule comprising methylamine group and methylsilane group because it helps to form a passivation layer to prevent silicon layer from expose to the etching process.
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the methylamine group is dimethylamine (i.e. tri-methyl-silyl-di-methyl-amine aka TMSDMA; See paragraph 0101, 0108)
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the methylsilane group is trimethylsilane (See paragraph 0101, 0128; i.e. tri-methyl-silyl-di-methyl-amine aka TMSDMA).
As to claim 5, Kim discloses the small molecule is dimethyl trimethylsilane (See paragraph 0101, 0128; i.e. tri-methyl-silyl-di-methyl-amine aka TMSDMA).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2, 6-8, 10-14, 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. Claims 9, 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claims 2, 6-8, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest etching the composite structure to selectively remove at least some of the silicon layer, wherein the methylsilane group is adsorbed on exposed surfaces of the silicon-germanium layer and retards etching of the silicon-germanium layer.
As to claims 9-14, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest exposing the nanosheets to a molecular species comprising a first functional group and a second functional group; and
heating the nanosheets and the molecular species to attach the first functional group to the silicon-germanium layers and to vaporize the second functional group; and
selectively etching at least a portion of the silicon layers isotropically using an etching gas, wherein the first functional group selectively retards etching of the silicon-germanium layers.
As to claims 15-20, the cited prior arts fail to disclose or suggest performing a cyclic etch process to selectively etch the silicon nanosheets, each cycle of the cyclic etch process comprising:
selectively oxidizing the silicon-germanium nanosheets to leave hydroxyl groups at the silicon-germanium nanosheets,
exposing the silicon-germanium nanosheets and the silicon nanosheets to a molecular species comprising an organic functional group and a silicon containing functional group,
annealing the substrate, and
exposing the substrate to an etching process to isotropically etch a portion of the silicon nanosheets selective with respect to the silicon-germanium nanosheets.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights