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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6 and 10 are pending and rejected. Claim 11 is withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are amended and claims 7-9 are cancelled.
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 1-6 and 10 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 1, the claim recites the limitation "the processing chamber" in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as though the substrate is located in a processing chamber during the heating process. Since none of the dependent claims remedy the clarity of claim 1, they are also rendered indefinite. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
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 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 1-6 and 10 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goktepeli, US 2016/0300729 A1 in view of Blalock, US 2005/0051827 A1 and Gilmer, US 2006/0094259 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Goktepeli teaches a substrate processing method (methods for passivation of semiconductor interfaces by deuterium annealing, abstract), comprising:
preparing a substrate having an insulating film on a surface thereof (where a substrate having a dielectric layer or gate oxide and insulating sidewall spacers is provided, 0020 and Fig. 1A).
They teach performing a deuterium anneal to passivate the dangling bonds at the oxide-silicon interface (0021). They teach that the deuterium anneal is performed on a device or wafer that has been previously annealed with hydrogen (0023). They teach that even with a hydrogen pre-anneal of a device, the deuterium can displace the hydrogen such that a majority of the passivation in the device is from deuterium (0035). They teach performing the deuterium anneal at a temperature range between 200°C and 500°C for at least 5 minutes or at least 30 minutes (claims 17, 22, and 23). Therefore, they teach maintaining the substrate at a temperature for annealing in deuterium for passivating dangling bonds, where the substrate is pre-annealed in hydrogen.
They do not teach raising the temperature from a first temperature to a second temperature while supplying hydrogen.
Blalock teaches a method of forming a rugged silicon-containing surface (abstract). They teach that a layer comprising amorphous silicon is provided within a reaction chamber at a first temperature and then the temperature is increased to a second temperature at least 40°C higher than the first temperature while flowing at least one hydrogen isotope into the chamber (abstract). They teach that the substrate is initially at a temperature of less than or equal to about 520°C and it is exposed to the hydrogen isotope while increasing the temperature (0013). They teach that the at least one hydrogen isotope flowing into the chamber during the temperature increase is at least one of H2, H-D, and D2 (0035). They teach that if the hydrogen-containing isotope is provided within the reaction chamber by flowing one or more of H2, H-D, and D2 into the reaction chamber with a gas, the gas can comprise, consist essentially of, or consist of, one or more of H2, H-D, and D2 (0036). They teach flowing the gas into the chamber at a flow rate from about 10 sccm to about 1 slm (0036). They teach that the hydrogen isotope in the chamber can attach to silicon dangling bonds associated with the surface of the layer and release stress of defect sites on the surface during the heating (0037-0038).
From the teachings of Blalock, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Goktepeli to have increased the temperature of the substrate to the hydrogen annealing temperature while flowing hydrogen and no deuterium because Goktepeli teaches performing a hydrogen pre-anneal and Blalock teaches that increasing the temperature for an annealing process while flowing a gas consisting of hydrogen can passivate dangling bonds in silicon such that it will also be expected to passivate the dangling bonds in the oxide-silicon surface during heating to the hydrogen annealing temperature.
They do not teach raising the temperature while flowing hydrogen to a second temperature at which the deuterium annealing is performed.
Gilmer teaches a semiconductor fabrication annealing process that includes depositing a high dielectric constant gate dielectric over a substrate and annealing the gate dielectric (abstract). They teach annealing in a passivating gas such as hydrogen, deuterium, or a combination thereof (abstract). They teach that the annealing temperature is preferably greater than approximately 470°C (abstract). They teach that the annealing process reduces or eliminates dangling bonds at the surface of the gate dielectric (0011).
From the teachings of Goktepeli and Gilmer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated the substrate to the second temperature so as to perform the hydrogen anneal and the deuterium anneal at the same temperature because Goktepeli teaches performing the deuterium anneal at a temperature of 200 to 500°C and Gilmer teaches that dangling bonds of gate dielectric film can be passivated with hydrogen or deuterium at a temperature of greater than 470°C, indicating that there is a range at which the temperature can be the same and indicating that hydrogen and deuterium can passivate dangling bonds at the same temperature such that it will be expected to provide a hydrogen pre-anneal as taught by Goktepeli which will passivate the dangling bonds and a subsequent deuterium anneal that will also passivate the dangling bonds and replace the hydrogen. Therefore, the temperature will be raised from a first temperature to a second temperature higher than the first while flowing hydrogen gas without deuterium gas for performing the hydrogen anneal and then the second temperature will be maintained while flowing deuterium gas without hydrogen gas for the deuterium annealing process. Further, since Blalock teaches flowing gases into a chamber for annealing (0036), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also flowed the hydrogen and deuterium gases into a processing chamber housing the substrate from outside of the chamber because Blalock indicates that such a configuration is suitable for supplying a substrate with gases during an annealing process.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Goktepeli in view of Blalock and Gilmer suggest the process of claim 1. As discussed above, Blalock teaches providing hydrogen to the substrate during heating, where it is suggested to flow the hydrogen while heating to the second temperature for performing the hydrogen pre-anneal. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously supplied hydrogen throughout an entire period of raising the temperature to the second temperature because it will supply the hydrogen during the process of heating and annealing as suggested by Goktepeli in view of Blalock and Gilmer while also supplying the desired gas for passivating the dangling bonds in the hydrogen pre-anneal. Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously flowed the hydrogen gas to the chamber prior to the start of raising the temperature to the second temperature to ensure that the atmosphere surrounding the substrate is provided with the desired gas for the annealing process to facilitate passivation.
Further, according to MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C): Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, the selection of flowing the hydrogen gas prior to starting to increase the temperature is considered to be obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Goktepeli in view of Blalock and Gilmer suggest the process of claim 1. As discussed above, it is suggested to maintain the temperature at the second temperature for the hydrogen pre-anneal. Also as discussed above, Blalock and Gilmer both teach that a combination of hydrogen and deuterium can be used to passivate the dangling bonds. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have flowed both the hydrogen and deuterium gases during the hydrogen pre-annealing process of maintaining the second temperature followed by performing the deuterium annealing process because Blalock and Gilmer indicate that a combination of deuterium and hydrogen can be used in an annealing process for passivating a surface, such that it will be expected to provide a suitable gas mixture during the hydrogen anneal, where the hydrogen can then be exchanged during the deuterium anneal. Therefore, deuterium will be flowed during the entirety of maintaining the second temperature, i.e., during the hydrogen/deuterium pre-anneal and then during the deuterium anneal.
Alternatively, Blalock teaches that once the second temperature is reached for forming silicon-containing seeds on the surface, the flow of hydrogen is stopped (0039 and 0042). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the flow of hydrogen can be stopped when the temperature has reached the desired deuterium annealing temperature such that the deuterium will be flowed during the entirety of the time the second temperature is maintained because Blalock indicates that hydrogen is needed only during a temperature increase, where the temperature increase will overlap a range at which a hydrogen annealing process is provided, i.e., the hydrogen annealing is provided while increasing the temperature, where Goktepeli indicates that a hydrogen pre-anneal is optional (0023), such that it will be expected to provide the hydrogen during a process that is indicated as desirable for providing hydrogen (during the temperature increase) while also providing the hydrogen pre-anneal and the subsequent deuterium anneal as desired.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Goktepeli in view of Blalock and Gilmer suggest the process of claim 1. Gilmer further teaches ramping down the temperature while maintaining the presence of the passivating gas (abstract). They teach that depassivation of fulfilled bonds that can occur in conventional anneal processing is reduced by maintaining the presence of the passivating gas while the ambient temperature is ramped down from the annealing temperature (0011). They teach cooling to a relatively low temperature (0015). They teach that the temperature for starting the annealing process (T1) and for cooling (T3) are preferably less than 100°C, e.g., room temperature or 25°C (0020 and Fig. 4).
From the teachings of Gilmer, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lowered the temperature of the substrate from the second temperature to the first temperature while continuously supplying deuterium to the substrate because Gilmer teaches that it is desirable to provide the passivating gas (such as deuterium) to the substrate while cooling to a temperature in the range of the first temperature (starting temperature) so as to reduce depassivation such that it will be expected to also prevent depassivation while cooling to a suitable temperature.
Regarding claim 10, Goktepeli in view of Blalock and Gilmer suggest the process of claim 1. Goktepeli teaches that the transistor structure includes an insulating sidewall spacer 131 (0020 and Fig. 1A).
They do not teach that the structure or insulating film includes SiN.
Blalock teaches a transistor 112 that comprises a gate oxide 113 and sidewall spacers comprising silicon dioxide and/or silicon nitride (0049 and Fig. 11).
From the teachings of Blalock, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the spacers from SiN because Blalock teaches that such a material is a desirable spacer in a transistor structure similar to that of Goktepeli.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been modified as indicated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights