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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on July 28, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not an unreasonable search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner has shown that the inventions of Groups I-III not only are properly classified in different class/subclasses, but also would require a different field of search and would present different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 due to the different categories of inventions recited in each Group. Moreover, if restriction is not maintained the claims that encompass the inventions of Groups II and III can be amended to recite a different method or process that is stored on and utilized by the computer readable medium or processor. Consequently, a prima facie case of undue search burden has been properly established.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 28, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method of processing a substrate by exposing the substrate to an inhibitor comprising a halogen-containing tin compound and epitaxially and selectively depositing a silicon-containing layer
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference characters (504) and (506) in ¶[0049] and ¶[0051] of the published application, respectively, are not shown in Fig. 2. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to steps (206) and (208), respectively.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0190489 to Li, et al. (hereinafter “Li”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2012/0184088 to Vincent, et al. (“Vincent”).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method of processing a substrate (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-2, and entire reference which teach a method of processing a substrate), comprising:
exposing a surface of the substrate in a processing chamber to an inhibitor (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0013]-[0019] which teach exposing the surface of a substrate located within a processing chamber to an inhibitor in step (120)),
wherein the surface of the substrate comprises one or more dielectric regions and one or more semiconductor regions (see Fig. 1, ¶[0011], and ¶¶[0018]-[0019] which teach that the substrate may be comprised of Si with one or more dielectric regions comprised of SiO2 or SiN), and
epitaxially and selectively depositing a silicon-containing material layer on the substrate after exposing the surface of the substrate to the inhibitor (see Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0020]-[0021] which teach that a Si-containing layer is selectively deposited via epitaxial growth onto exposed areas of the substrate in step (130)).
Li does not teach that the inhibitor comprises a halogen-containing compound comprising tin. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0048]-[0069] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Vincent teaches an analogous method of selectively depositing an epitaxial Si layer onto a substrate (10) having Si (11) and SiO2 (12) areas formed thereupon. In ¶¶[0062]-[0069] Vincent specifically teaches that the use of tin tetrachloride (SnCl4) promotes selective epitaxial growth onto Si-containing areas (11) while inhibiting growth on dielectric areas (12) which contain an oxide such as SiO2. In ¶[0062] Vincent further teaches that SnCl4 has the advantage of being an economically interesting and widely used compound. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Vincent and would be motivated to utilize a halogen-containing compound comprising tin such as SnCl4 as the inhibitor that is applied in step (120) in the method of Li in order to benefit from the use of a more economical and widely used compound. Moreover, the use of SnCl4 as the inhibitor in the method of Li would involve nothing more than the use of a known equivalent for the same purpose or, alternatively, is nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Additionally, the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claim 2, Li does not teach that the halogen-containing compound is tin tetrachloride. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in ¶¶[0062]-[0069] Vincent specifically teaches that the use of tin tetrachloride (SnCl4) promotes selective epitaxial growth onto Si-containing areas (11) while inhibiting growth on dielectric areas (12) which contain an oxide such as SiO2.
Regarding claim 3, Li does not teach that the inhibitor is flowed into the processing chamber at a volumetric flow rate of about 1 standard cubic centimeters per minute (SCCM) to about 100 sccm. However, in at least ¶¶[0033]-[0034], ¶[0070], ¶[0073], and ¶¶[0083]-[0085] Vincent teaches that the SnCl4 flow rate may range from 20 to 120 sccm and speficially teaches that when the SnCl4 flow rate is 40 or 80 sccm selective growth is obtained as no deposition was observed on silicon oxide. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize SnCl4 as an inhibitor in the method of Li at a flow rate of 40 to 80 sccm and would then utilize routine experimentation to optimize the flow rate such that the desired inhibitor effect on dielectric surfaces is obtained.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches that the processing chamber has a pressure of about 1 Torr to about 300 Torr when flowing the inhibitor into the processing chamber (see ¶[0021] which teaches that the pressure in the chamber is less than 50 Torr during the epitaxial growth process; accordingly, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would start with a chamber pressure of 50 Torr during application of the inhibitor in step (120) and would be motivated to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal chamber pressure required to obtain the desired inhibitor effect).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that a temperature of the processing chamber is less than 550 °C (see ¶[0020] which teaches that the conditions in the growth chamber may, in at least some embodiments, be maintained at or below 400 °C).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches pre-cleaning the substrate (see Fig. 1 and ¶[0018] which teach that the substrate is precleaned in step (110)).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Vincent and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2023/0386831 to Sharma, et al. (“Sharma”).
Regarding claim 4, Li and Vincent do not teach exposing the substrate to the inhibitor further comprises pulsing the inhibitor into the processing chamber for a period of time of about 0.1 seconds to about 60 seconds. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0054]-[0069] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Sharma teaches an analogous method of selectively depositing a thin film (130) onto a second region (112) of a substrate (110) through the use of an inhibitor (120) which is formed on a first region (111). In step (204) at ¶¶[0057]-[0060] Sharma specifically teaches that the inhibitor (120) is applied in a manner to produce the desired thickness and properties and may be applied in a pulsed manner for a duration of between 5 and 600 seconds. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Sharma and would be motivated to apply the SnCl4 inhibitor utilized in the method of Li and Vincent by supplying SnCl4 in pulses with a duration of at least 5 seconds which may be optimized through routine experimentation to obtain the desired thickness and surface coverage necessary to produce selective growth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In Figs. 1-3 and associated descriptive text U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0005460 to Hausmann, et al. teaches a method of using a blocking reagent to selectively deposit onto predetermined regions of the substrate surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights