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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on June 3, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 3, 20265.
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:
Silicon germanium layer formed on a surface of a substrate by providing a first silicon precursor, a second silicon precursor, and a germanium precursor
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
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.
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.
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 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by or, alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2016/0276481 to Wu, et al. (hereinafter “Wu”). It is noted that claims 1-10 appear to be product-by-process claims. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2113. Because of the nature of product-by-process claims the Examiner cannot ordinarily focus on the precise difference between the claimed product and the disclosed product. It is then Applicants’ burden to prove that an unobvious difference exists. See In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292-93 (CAFC 1983). See also footnote 11 O.G. Notice 1162 59-61, wherein a 35 USC 102/103 rejection is authorized in the case of product-by-process claims because the exact identity of the claimed product or the prior art product cannot be determined by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a structure comprising a silicon germanium layer formed according to a method of forming the silicon germanium layer on a surface of a substrate (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and entire reference which teach a SiGe-based semiconductor device structure, including specifically Fig. 1D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach a source/drain structure (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium layers formed on a substrate (100)). Since this is a product-by-process claim it is defined by the structure of the product rather than its method of making and it is the Examiner’s position that the SiGe layers which constitute the source/drain structure (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) possess the same structure as the SiGe layer formed by the method of claims 1-5; moreover, the process steps in the dependent claims do not appear to define any features which further define the structure of the SiGe layer as claimed). In any case, Wu further teaches a method of forming a structure comprising a SiGe layer on a substrate comprising the steps of:
providing the substrate within a reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0010]-[0030] which teach providing a substrate (100) in a reaction chamber (300));
providing a first silicon precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a first silicon-containing precursor such as silane (SiH4) or dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium);
providing a second silicon precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a second silicon-containing precursor such as dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2) or silane (SiH4) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium); and
providing a germanium precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a germanium-containing precursor such as germane (GeH4) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium),
wherein the steps of providing the first silicon precursor to the reaction chamber, providing the second silicon precursor to the reaction chamber, and providing the germanium precursor to the reaction chamber overlap (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first and second silicon-containing precursors and the germanium precursors are supplied to the chamber (300) in combination in order to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium; alternatively, it would have been within the capabilities of an ordinary artisan to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal number and type of Si-containing precursor gases from those disclose in at least ¶[0025] and ¶[0030] of Wu which are necessary to produce a SiGe layer having the desired quality, uniformity, and composition).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches that the first silicon precursor consists of a halogenated silicon precursor (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may consist of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2)).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches that the halogenated silicon precursor comprises a compound represented by a formula SixWyHz, wherein W is a halide selected from the group consisting of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine, x and y are integers greater than zero, and z is an integer greater than or equal to zero (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may be comprised of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2)).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches that the halogenated silicon precursor comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of trichlorosilane, dichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, a silicon bromide, and a silicon iodide (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may be comprised of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2)).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches that the second silicon precursor consists of a nonhalogenated silicon precursor (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a second silicon-containing precursor such as silane (SiH4)).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches a device comprising a silicon germanium layer formed according to a method of forming the silicon germanium layer on a surface of a substrate (see, e.g., the Abstract, Figs. 1-3, and entire reference which teach a SiGe-based semiconductor device structure, including specifically Fig. 1D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach a device comprising a source/drain structure (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium layers formed on a substrate (100)). Since this is a product-by-process claim it is defined by the structure of the product rather than its method of making and it is the Examiner’s position that the SiGe layers which constitute the device formed with the source/drain structure (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) possess the same structure as the device comprising a SiGe layer formed by the method of claims 6-10; moreover, the process steps in the dependent claims do not appear to define any features which further define the structure of the SiGe layer as claimed). In any case, Wu further teaches a method of forming a device comprising a SiGe layer on a substrate comprising the steps of:
providing the substrate within a reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0010]-[0030] which teach providing a substrate (100) in a reaction chamber (300));
providing a first silicon precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a first silicon-containing precursor such as silane (SiH4) or dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium);
providing a second silicon precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a second silicon-containing precursor such as dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2) or silane (SiH4) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium); and
providing a germanium precursor to the reaction chamber (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a germanium-containing precursor such as germane (GeH4) to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium),
wherein the steps of providing the first silicon precursor to the reaction chamber, providing the second silicon precursor to the reaction chamber, and providing the germanium precursor to the reaction chamber overlap (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first and second silicon-containing precursors and the germanium precursors are supplied to the chamber (300) in combination in order to form source/drain structures (116A-B) and cap elements (118A-B) comprised of silicon germanium; alternatively, it would have been within the capabilities of an ordinary artisan to utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal number and type of Si-containing precursor gases from those disclose in at least ¶[0025] and ¶[0030] of Wu which are necessary to produce a SiGe layer having the desired quality, uniformity, and composition).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches that the first silicon precursor consists of a halogenated silicon precursor (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may consist of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2)).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches that the halogenated silicon precursor comprises a compound represented by a formula SixWyHz, wherein W is a halide selected from the group consisting of fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine, x and y are integers greater than zero, and z is an integer greater than or equal to zero (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may be comprised of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2)).
Regarding claim 9, Wu teaches that the halogenated silicon precursor comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of trichlorosilane, dichlorosilane, silicon tetrachloride, a silicon bromide, and a silicon iodide (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach that the first silicon-containing precursor may be comprised of dichlorosilane (SiH2Cl2))..
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches that the second silicon precursor consists of a nonhalogenated silicon precursor (see, e.g., Figs. 1C-D and ¶¶[0025]-[0030] which teach providing a second silicon-containing precursor such as silane (SiH4)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2009/0258463 to Kim, et al. discloses epitaxial SiGe layers formed using first and second Si-containing precursor gases which include silane and dichlorosilane. In ¶[0032] of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0167505 to Chew, et al. an epitaxial SiGe layer is formed by simultaneously flowing silane, dichlorosilane, and germane source gases.
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