DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 and January 9, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restrictions/Elections
Claims 8 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species (claims 8 – 12) and inventions (claims 13 – 15), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 12, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6, 16 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 16;
Present claims 6 and 16 both depend on claim 5, which as been cancelled. As parent claim 5 is cancelled, the full metes and bounds of what is meant to be imported to dependent claims 6 and 16 cannot be ascertained, rendering the claims indefinite. As present claim 1 has the closest antecedent basis for the limitations of claims 6 and 16, the Examiner interpreted claims 6 and 16 to depend from claim 1 for the purposes of art rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 – 3, 6 – 7, 16 – 19, 21 – 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn et al. US 20150303258 A1 (hereafter “Kuhn”) in view of Grützmacher US 20170121845 A1 (hereafter “Grützmacher”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22:
Kuhn is directed to a method of forming microelectronic structures, such as structures formed of SiGe layers and Si layers (Abstract; [0012], [0019]). Kuhn discloses that their method comprises:
Providing a bulk silicon substrate 100 ([0012])
Growing a first SiGe layer 102 by epitaxial growth directly onto the bulk silicon substrate ([0012]; Fig. 1a);
Growing a second silicon layer 104 onto the first SiGe layer; and
Repeating the order of growing layers ([0012]).
Kuhn does not expressly teach that during the step of forming the first layer, a germanium precursor comprising a halogen is provided a reaction chamber; a recited silicon precursor; and that the step of forming the first layer comprises the recited first period, second period and third period between the germanium precursor and the second germanium precursor in the presented order.
With regards to providing a germanium precursor comprising a halogen during the step of forming the first layer; and a recited silicon precursor:
Grützmacher is directed to a method of depositing a crystal layer at low temperatures (Abstract; [0001]). Grützmacher discloses that their method comprises: providing a process chamber ([0015]); providing a starting material halide of a group IV main group (i.e. C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb, Fl) such as SnCl4 or GeCl4 [halogen-containing, germanium chloride] in combination with a hydride e.g. Ge2H6 SiH4 ([0015] page 2 to 3, [0062[ – [0066]); and epitaxially forming a layer comprising Si and Ge ([0015], [0049], [0062]). Grützmacher also discloses that the starting material halide may be SiCl4 [silicon precursor having general formula of SixWyHz, where W is Cl, x is 1, y is 4, and z is zero] with e.g. SiH4, Ge2H6 ([0015]).
Grützmacher discloses that providing a hydride precursor (non-halogen, meeting claim 22) in combination with a halide precursor in a chemical vapor deposition process allows for exothermic reaction between radicals of the hydride species and the halide species which in turn powers an increase to the surface mobility of element atoms to find best places for integration into a forming crystal lattice ([0015] “The reaction heat of the first reaction between the radicals and the halides makes a significant contribution to the increase of the surface mobility. The atoms of the one or more elements adsorbed at the surface from radicals decomposed at the surface [meeting claim 18] can thus move to a small extent over the surface for a short time and over a short distance in order to find places for integration into the crystal lattice that are favourable in terms of energy. The local surface temperature is so high that the atoms of the first element and of the second element are integrated into the surface in crystalline order).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kuhn by forming the SiGe layer of Kuhn according to the general teachings of the process of Grützmacher, including the placement of a substrate in a reaction chamber, because Grützmacher teaches that the inclusion and reaction of Si and/or Ge hydrides in combination with Si and/or Ge halides helps to better form single crystals of the deposited elements.
With regards to the step of forming the first layer comprising the recited first period, second period and third period between the germanium precursor and the second germanium precursor in the presented order:
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Examiner notes that where different germanium precursors perform known functions in combination with other group IV precursors (including disclosed germane, Ge2H6, meeting claim 6 in view of the indefiniteness of the claim and claim 22) – the limitations recited in claim 1 amount to the splitting of a step of a method to substeps, including separate substeps [meeting claim 16 in view of the indefiniteness of the claim].
Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists as the limitations of instant claim 5 amount to the splitting of a step into two or more steps of equivalent function and transposition, manner and result. Absent a showing of unexpected results or criticality, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), with regards the selection of the order and timing of performing process steps being prima facie obvious absent new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7:
While Kuhn in view of Grützmacher does not expressly teach the introduction of two or more germanium precursors, Grützmacher does disclose that suitable halides for deposition include bromides, iodides or chlorides of Group IV elements ([0015] “A halide of an element of the IV main group is used as second starting material, for example a bromide, an iodide, or a chloride”). Grützmacher also discloses in a variant of their invention that the group IV element between the hydride species and the halide species can be the same in the deposition of films that only have the one group IV element, which suggests that multiple halides of one group IV element can be combined with multiple hydrides of a second group IV element ([0015], [0049]). Furthermore, such species can be supplied at the same time [meeting claim 7] "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions [in this case two hydride precursors of an element, two chloride precursors of an element or both a hydride and chloride of an element with a hydride or chloride of a different element] each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17:
Kuhn in view of Grützmacher does not expressly teach that z is greater than zero (e.g. SiCl3H).
However, Grützmacher does disclose the use of SiCl4 as a starting material halide ([0015]). Furthermore, Grützmacher does disclose the benefits of having radicals having hydrogen (the hydride radicals) in combination with radicals having halogens (the halide radicals). The Examiner also notes that halides are broadly defined as compounds that contains a halogen1, which can include compounds having silicon, a halogen, and another element, such as hydrogen. As the difference between the disclosed halides and those encompassed by the recited formula are structurally similar, there can be a reasonable expectation that structurally similar species usually have similar properties. See, e.g., Dillon, 919 F.2d at 693, 696, 16 USPQ2d at 1901, 1904.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kuhn in view of Grützmacher by using a silicon compound of the recited general formula, wherein z is greater than zero – such as SiCl3H – as a starting material halide because Grützmacher suggests that the amount and presence of halide containing radicals and hydride containing radicals affects the underlying reactions that helps to better form single crystals of the deposited elements ([0015]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn in view of Grützmacher as applied to claims 1 – 7 and 16 – 19 above, and further in view of Copel et al. US 5628834 A (hereafter “Copel”).
Regarding claim 20:
Kuhn does not expressly teach a step of providing a surfactant to the reaction chamber.
Copel is directed to surfactant-enhanced epitaxy and methods of depositing epitaxial layers of germanium or alloys of germanium with silicon eg. GexSi1-x alloy layers in a superlattice (Abstract; col 5 lines 9 – 45). Copel discloses first depositing a surfactant element, e.g. arsenic, antimony, aluminum, gallium at one monolayer thick and then depositing a layer of a first crystallizable material on a surface of the surfactant material (Abstract; col 3 lines 3 – 25). Copel further discloses that the surfactant aids in preventing the layer of first crystallizable material (e.g. germanium or silicon) from forming islands instead of an epitaxial layer (col 3 line 55 – col 4 line 7, col 5 line 9 – 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Kuhn in view of Grützmacher to include a step of providing a surfactant to the reaction chamber such as antimony because Copel teaches that such surfactant monolayers aid in the epitaxial formation of such layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Kuhn, Grützmacher, or Copel, alone or in combination, discloses each and every limitation of claim 1. The limitation of the first period, second period, and third period are not merely the splitting of a method to sub-steps, as asserted by the Office Action, but are rather distinct method steps.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) As discussed above, absent a showing of a new or unexpected result, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the mere order of performing process steps where the function of the process steps are equivalent in terms of function, manner and result. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 See Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries (Ed.). (2016). Halide. In The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed.). https://access.infobase.com/article/1065894-halide?aid=279753 ; or Butler, S. (Ed.). (2017). Halide. In The Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed.). https://access.infobase.com/article/1315593-halide?aid=279753 .