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 .
Claims 1-24 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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 4,18 and 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.
Regarding claim 4, the term “may” renders the claim unclear and confusing as to whether or not the etchants recited are actually utilized? The Examiner suggests deletion of the term “may” to overcome the rejection. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 18, the term “the thickness” lacks antecedent basis. The second layer does not recite any “thickness”. Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 20, the term “the first reaction chamber” lacks antecedent basis. It appears that this claim should refer to claim 19 which recites a first reaction chamber”? Clarifications is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1,3-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806).
Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) teaches a interface passivation layers and methods of fabricating whereby forming a silicon-germanium layer (210) over a substrate (205), removing a native oxide layer (211) from an upper surface of the silicon-germanium layer and exposing the upper surface having the removed native oxide layer to an ozone containing solution resulting in forming a passivation layer including germanium oxide and germanium dioxide layer (220) (abstract, [0003],[0014],[0018] and Fig. 1). Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) teaches forming a dielectric layer (230) over the passivation layer (220) [0026].
Regarding claim 1, the substrate is silicon [0019] and the SiGe layer being applied to the substrate can also be considered the substrate. The ozone containing solution is the oxidant. The first layer is the GeO/GeO2 (220) and the second is the dielectric layer (230).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the etchant include hydrofluoric acid (HF) [0015],[0021].
Regarding claim 5, the substrate is silicon [0019] and the SiGe layer being applied to the substrate can also be considered the substrate.
Regarding 6, the ozone containing solution is de-ionized and hence would be a weaker oxidizer than solely ozone [0015].
Regarding claim 14, the first layer is GeO/GeO2 and the second layer is an oxide dielectric [0026].
Regarding claim 15, the first layer can also include silicon along with the GeO/GeO2 since the substrate include silicon.
Regarding claim 16, the second oxide layer includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3), Hafnium oxide (HfO2) or zirconium oxide (ZrO2) [0026].
Regarding claim 17, the second oxide layer includes Yttrium (Y2O3) or Lanthanum (La2O3) [0026].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2,7-13 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) in combination with Tapily (2020/0328078).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) are incorporated here.
Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) fails to teach the etchant is gas phase, the oxidant is gas phase, the oxidant includes H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) and the process steps are performed in a first and/or second chamber.
Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches a similar process whereby removing residue (native oxides) by a cleaning gas including hydrogen and nitrogen [0015], an oxidizer gas including H2O2 [0021] in a plurality of processing chambers (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) to utilize the claimed oxidant and utilize a gas phase etchant and oxidant as evidenced by Tapily (2020/0328078) with the expectation of providing a clean surface prior to forming the oxide layer thereon.
Regarding claim 2, Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches cleaning gas (claimed etchant) including hydrogen [0015].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches oxidant being gaseous and including H2O2 [0021].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) teaches controlling the thickness of the passivation layer (claimed first oxide layer) to be 1.5nm or less which would overlap the claimed less than 5 or 10 angstroms [0023],[0024]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [Sudo’s temperature range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 11, Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches restoring hydroxylated groups on the surface with the oxidizer [0017].
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches heat treating the substrate during the removing residue and hence would be suggestive of heat treating during other processing steps including the oxidizing step and this heat treating being heating the substrate which is typically held by a susceptor [0015].
Regarding claim 18, Siddiqui et al. (2016/0343806) is silent with respect to the thickness of the claimed second dielectric layer disclosed in [0026]. The Examiner takes the position that the thickness would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art depending upon the desire final product and hence the claimed thickness of 0.5-30 angstroms would be a matter of design choice absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claims 19-24, Tapily (2020/0328078) teaches using a plurality of chambers for performing the removing residual, oxidizing and forming layers ([0025] and Fig 3) and hence would be suggestive of performing these in the first and/or second chambers as claimed absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights