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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(a) rejection is withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-17, 21-23, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(Re Claims 1, 12, and 21) Reciting either “sending a first [cleaning liquid/mixture] into a cavity in a treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber” or “sending [a second cleaning liquid/the heated DI water] into the cavity in the first treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the first treatment chamber” introduces new matter. While the specification describes passing a first cleaning liquid/mixture through a pipe, and sending that cleaning liquid or mixture to the first liquid channel (e.g. ¶23); and describes a first liquid channel as leading to a cavity of the first treatment chamber (e.g. ¶22), nowhere is the liquid or mixture actually shown or described as sent into the cavity through a first liquid channel. Similarly, nothing in the specification describes sending a liquid into the cavity through a second liquid channel. From the drawings it’s not even apparent that a path exists for sending the first or second liquid through the first or second liquid channel into the cavity at all.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 13-17, 22-23, and 27-30 inherit this rejection for new matter.
(Re Claim 1) Reciting “the first liquid channel is free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity” introduces new matter. Nowhere is the first liquid channel originally described as being free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity, using the same or synonymous language, or as the natural consequence of the process used to fill the cavity as described in the specification.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, and 27-28 inherit this rejection for new matter.
(Re Claim 21) Reciting “the first liquid channel is disconnected to the second liquid channel” introduces new matter. Nowhere were the first and second liquid channels described as disconnected in the specification using the same or synonymous language. The drawings even appear to show that the first and second liquid channels are connected to each other through portions of the treatment chamber (e.g., Fig. 9).
Furthermore, this cited limitation appears to be a negative limitation - due to the use of “disconnected to”. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure; and any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22-23 inherit these rejections for new matter and negative limitations.
(Re Claim 28) Reciting “the second liquid channel is free of the first cleaning liquid during sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity” introduces new matter. Nowhere is the second liquid channel originally described as being free of the first cleaning liquid during sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity, using the same or synonymous language, or as the natural consequence of the process used to fill the cavity as described in the specification.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 12-17, 21-23, and 27-30 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.
(Re Claim 1, 12, and 21) As neither “sending a first [cleaning liquid/mixture] into a cavity in a treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber” nor “sending [a second cleaning liquid/the heated DI water] into the cavity in the first treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the first treatment chamber” appear to be neither shown nor described, the structural relationship between parts is unclear.
During examination, “sending a first [cleaning liquid/mixture] into a cavity in a treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber” was read as “sending a first [cleaning liquid/mixture] into a cavity in a treatment chamber, wherein a first liquid channel is on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber”; and “sending [a second cleaning liquid/the heated DI water] into the cavity in the first treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the first treatment chamber” was read as “sending [a second cleaning liquid/the heated DI water] into the cavity in the first treatment chamber, wherein a second liquid channel is on a second sidewall of the first treatment chamber”
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 13-17, 22-23, and 27-30 inherit this rejection for new matter
(Re Claim 1) As where “the first liquid channel is free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity” is neither shown nor described, the structural relationship between parts is unclear.
During examination, “the first liquid channel is free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity” was read as “the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel are different”.
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, and 27-28 inherit this rejection for indefiniteness.
(Re Claim 21) As “the first liquid channel is disconnected to the second liquid channel” appears to be neither shown nor described, the structural relationship between parts is unclear.
During examination, “the first liquid channel is disconnected to the second liquid channel” was read as “the first liquid channel is different from the second liquid channel”.
(Re Claim 28) As “the second liquid channel is free of the first cleaning liquid during sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity” appears to be neither shown nor described, the structural relationship between parts is unclear.
During examination, “the second liquid channel is free of the first cleaning liquid during sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity” was read as “the first liquid channel and the second liquid channel are different”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), and Takuma (US 2010/0174397), all of record.
(Re Claim 1) Kim teaches a method, comprising: soaking a batch of wafers (rinsing a group of wafers; Fig. 1B, ¶9) in a first cleaning liquid (DI water; ¶9) wherein the first cleaning liquid has a first temperature (all materials have a temperature); and soaking the batch of wafers in an etchant (phosphoric acid; ¶11), wherein the etchant has a third temperature (150°C; Fig. 1B, ¶11).
Kim does not explicitly teach a method comprising:
sending a first cleaning liquid into a cavity in a treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber;
soaking a batch of wafers in the first cleaning liquid in the cavity in a treatment chamber;
replacing the first cleaning liquid with a second cleaning liquid by sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity in the treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the treatment chamber, wherein a position of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is substantially level with a position of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall, the first liquid channel is free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity, the second cleaning liquid has a second temperature, and the batch of wafers remains at a same position in the cavity in the treatment chamber during replacing the first cleaning liquid with the second cleaning liquid; soaking the batch of wafers in the second cleaning liquid; and soaking the batch of wafers in an etchant, wherein the etchant has a third temperature, and the second temperature is between the first temperature and the third temperature.
Yi teaches sending a first mixture (the chemical solution through the nozzles 300; ¶¶29, 33, and 48, Fig. 3) into a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3), wherein a first liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a first sidewall (left sidewall of 120; Fig. 3) of the first treatment chamber (Fig. 3 markup); a second liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a second sidewall (right sidewall of 120; Fig. 3); soaking a batch of wafers (W; Fig. 3, ¶28) in a first cleaning liquid (the chemical solution; ¶¶29, 48, Fig. 3) in a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3); a and replacing the first cleaning liquid (¶48) with a second cleaning liquid (deionized water; ¶48) having a second temperature (all materials have a temperature), and the batch of wafers remains at a same position in the cavity in the treatment chamber during replacing the first cleaning liquid with the second cleaning liquid (“alternatively, instead of being fixed to the treating room 100”; ¶32).
Takuma teaches treating wafers with a first cleaning liquid (SC1 solution; Fig. 6, ¶44) followed by treating with a second cleaning liquid (Deionized water; Fig. 6, ¶44).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the apparatus of Yi in order to perform the rinse bath step using deionized water taught by Kim, as Yi’s rinse step predictably cleans a batch of wafers using deionized water (Kim: ¶10), and also allows for reusing chemical solution that overflows the cavity (Yi: ¶32). See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to use SC1 to soak the batch of wafers in the apparatus of Yi before treating with deionized water, in order to remove particles or organic contaminates on the surfaces of the batch of wafers (Takuma: ¶44), and because Yi states that the chemical solution may be an ammonium hydroxide solution (Yi: ¶29). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Modified Kim then teaches sending a first cleaning liquid (Takuma: SC1 solution; Yi: through nozzles 300) into a cavity (Yi Fig. 3 markup) in a treatment chamber (Yi: 100), and replacing the first cleaning liquid with a second cleaning liquid (deionized water; Yi: ¶48).
When the first cleaning liquid is selected then, this results in sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity of the treatment chamber, wherein the first liquid channel is on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber (left sidewall of Yi’s 120); and when the second cleaning liquid is selected, this results in sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity of the treatment chamber, wherein a second liquid channel is on a second sidewall (right sidewall of Yi’s 120); wherein a position (Yi: topmost surface; Fig. 3) of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is substantially level with a position (Yi: topmost surface; Fig. 3) of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall. The first liquid channel is also free of the second cleaning liquid during sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity (see the 112(a) and (b) rejections above regarding “free of”).
Modified Kim has still yet to explicitly teach soaking the batch of wafers in the second cleaning liquid, and the second temperature is between the first temperature and the third temperature.
Takuma teaches soaking a wafer in deionized water in order to have the contaminated water overflow the top of a cavity (Fig. 1, ¶86).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to soak the batch of wafers of modified Kim in the second cleaning liquid – deionized water – of the apparatus of Yi, as taught by Takuma, in order to separate contaminants from the surfaces of the batch of wafers (Takuma: ¶86; Yi: ¶48).
Kim teaches heating deionized water, the second cleaning liquid, to at least 70°C (Kim: ¶39).
Rayandayan teaches that when processing wafers a suitable temperature for SC1 (corresponding to the first temperature of the first cleaning liquid) is 50°C (¶73).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the temperature values taught by Rayandayan and Kim for the first and second cleaning liquid, and the etchant, in order to clean the wafers without damaging them and reduce temperature drift in an etchant (Kim: ¶¶20, 22, and 39). Modified Kim then teaches the second temperature is between the first and third temperature.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 2) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein soaking the batch of wafers in an etchant is performed after soaking the batch of wafers in the second cleaning liquid (Kim: Fig. 1B).
(Re Claim 3) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first temperature is in a range from about 25°C to about 60°C (Rayandayan: 50°C).
(Re Claim 4) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first cleaning liquid is a standard clean- 1 (SC1) (Takuma: ¶44).
(Re Claim 6) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second cleaning liquid is a deionized water (DI water) (Yi: ¶48).
(Re Claim 7) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second temperature is in a range from about 60°C to about 90°C (Kim: 70°C; ¶39).
(Re Claim 9) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the etchant is a mixture of phosphoric acid (H3PO4) and water (H20) (Kim: aqueous phosphoric acid; ¶11).
(Re Claim 28) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second liquid channel is free of the first cleaning liquid during sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity (see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
Claims 12, 15, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), Takuma (US 2010/0174397), Takahashi (US 2005/0133066), Verhaverbeke et al. (US 6,495,099) and Kim et al. (US 2005/0028842) referred to as Kim842, all of record.
(Re Claim 12) Kim teaches a method, comprising:
soaking the batch of wafers (rinsing a group of wafers; Fig. 1B, ¶9) in a deionized water (DI water) (¶9) in a first treatment chamber (10; Fig. 1B);
transferring the batch of wafers from the first treatment chamber to a processing chamber (20; ¶9); and
wet-etching the batch of wafers in the processing chamber (¶9).
Kim does not explicitly teach a method involving the referenced embodiment comprising:
sending a first mixture into a cavity in a first treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the first treatment chamber,
soaking a batch of wafers in the first mixture comprising standard clean-1 (SC1) in the cavity in the first treatment chamber, a top surface of the first mixture is at a level in the cavity of the first treatment chamber, and a position of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is higher than the top surface of the first mixture in the cavity; and
draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber, wherein the batch of wafers remains in the cavity in the first treatment chamber and at a position lower than the level when draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber;
after draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber, providing heated deionized water (DI water) in the drained first treatment chamber by sending the heated DI water into the cavity in the first treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the first treatment chamber to soak the batch of wafers, wherein a temperature of heated DI water is higher than a temperature of the first mixture.
Yi teaches sending a first mixture (the chemical solution through the nozzles 300; ¶¶29, 33, and 48, Fig. 3) into a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3), wherein a first liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a first sidewall (left sidewall of 120; Fig. 3) of the first treatment chamber (Fig. 3 markup); a second liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a second sidewall (right sidewall of 120; Fig. 3); soaking a batch of wafers (W; Fig. 3, ¶28) in a first mixture (the chemical solution; ¶¶29, 48, Fig. 3) in a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3), and a top surface of the first mixture is at a level in the cavity of the first treatment chamber (as the chemical solution overflows the cavity, a top surface of the first mixture is at a level in the cavity of the first treatment chamber that is just inside of the cavity; “at” does not preclude this treatment, as it allows for two elements to be near each other; Fig. 3 markup); draining the first mixture (¶48) from the first treatment chamber, wherein the batch of wafers remains in the cavity in the first treatment chamber (“alternatively, instead of being fixed to the treating room 100”; ¶32) and at a position lower than the level when draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber; and treating the wafers with a second mixture (deionized water; ¶48) having a second temperature (all materials have a temperature).
Takuma teaches treating wafers with a first cleaning liquid (SC1 solution; Fig. 6, ¶44) followed by treating with a second cleaning liquid (Deionized water; Fig. 6, ¶44).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the apparatus of Yi in order to perform the rinse bath step using deionized water taught by Kim, as Yi’s rinse step predictably cleans a batch of wafers using deionized water (Kim: ¶10), and also allows for reusing chemical solution that overflows the cavity (Yi: ¶32). See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to use SC1 to soak the batch of wafers in the apparatus of Yi before treating with deionized water, in order to remove particles or organic contaminates on the surfaces of the batch of wafers (Takuma: ¶44), and because Yi states that the chemical solution may be an ammonium hydroxide solution (Yi: ¶29). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Modified Kim then teaches sending a first mixture (Takuma: SC1 solution; Yi: through nozzles 300) into a cavity (Yi: Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3), wherein a first liquid channel is on a first sidewall of the first treatment chamber (see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above);
soaking a batch of wafers in a first mixture (Takuma: SC1 solution) comprising standard clean-1 (SC1) in a cavity (Yi Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (Yi: 100), and a top surface of the first mixture is at a level in the cavity of the first treatment chamber (see treatment of “at”; Yi: Fig. 3 markup);
draining the first mixture (Yi: ¶48) the first mixture from the first treatment chamber, wherein the batch of wafers remains in the cavity in the first treatment chamber and at a position lower than the level when draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber;
transferring the batch of wafers from the first treatment chamber (Yi: 100) to a processing chamber (Kim: 20; Fig. 1B, ¶9); and
wet-etching the batch of wafers in the processing chamber (Kim: ¶9).
Modified Kim has yet to explicitly teach soaking the batch of wafers in a heated deionized water (DI water) in the first treatment chamber, wherein a temperature of the heated DI water is higher than a temperature of the first mixture.
Takuma teaches soaking a wafer in deionized water in order to have the contaminated water overflow the top of a cavity (Fig. 1, ¶86).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to soak the batch of wafers of modified Kim in the deionized water of the apparatus of Yi, as taught by Takuma, in order to separate contaminants from the surfaces of the batch of wafers (Takuma: ¶86; Yi: ¶48).
This results in modified Kim teaching sending the heated DI water into the cavity in the first treatment chamber (Yi: through nozzles 300; ¶48), wherein a second liquid channel (Yi: Fig. 3 markup) is on a second sidewall (Yi: right 120; Fig. 3) of the first treatment chamber to soak the batch of wafers (see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
Kim teaches heating deionized water, the second cleaning liquid, to at least 70°C (Kim: ¶39).
Rayandayan teaches that when processing wafers a suitable temperature for SC1 (corresponding to the first temperature of the first cleaning liquid) is 50°C (¶73).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the temperature values taught by Rayandayan and Kim for the first and second cleaning liquid, and the etchant, in order to clean the wafers without damaging them, and to heat the deionized water of modified Kim in order to reduce departure from target process temperatures (Kim: ¶20), causing it to be heated DI water.
Modified Kim then teaches a temperature of the heated DI water is higher than a temperature of the first mixture.
Modified Kim has yet to explicitly teach the method wherein after draining the first mixture from the first treatment chamber, providing a heated deionized water (DI water) in the drained first treatment chamber.
Kim842 teaches fully draining a first mixture (2; ¶20) from a first treatment chamber (1; Fig. 1D) through a drain valve.
Verhaverbeke teaches that replacing a first mixture with DI water through displacement, or draining the treatment chamber of the mixture before introducing the DI water, are alternative methods of introducing DI into a treatment chamber (col. 4 ln. 9-13).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to drain the first treatment chamber of modified Kim before providing the deionized water to the drained first treatment chamber, by using the drain valve 170a of Yi in the manner of Kim842, rather than displacing the first mixture (Yi: ¶48), as these are known alternative methods of introducing DI water during a cleaning step. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Modified Kim has yet to be shown to explicitly teach a position of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is higher than the top surface of the first mixture in the cavity.
Takahashi demonstrates a first and second liquid channel (Takahashi Fig. 3 markup), where a position of the first liquid channel on a first sidewall (left sidewall of 1; Fig. 3) is higher than a top surface of a first mixture (Fig. 3; ¶¶83, 86).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use the taller first and second liquid channel heights of Takahashi, with respect to a cavity of a treatment chamber (Takahashi: 1; Fig. 3), such that either liquid channel has a position on its topmost surface located higher in comparison to the top surface of the first mixture of modified Kim, in order to capture parts of the first mixture that overflow out of the cavity due to the increased height of the first and second channels (Takahashi: ¶86; Yi: ¶31). See also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
766
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
609
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 15) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
drying the batch of wafers in a drying chamber (40; Fig. 1B).
(Re Claim 29) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 12, wherein a position of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall is higher than the top surface of the first mixture in the cavity (see the discussion for the rejection of claim 12 with respect to Takahashi).
(Re Claim 30) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the position of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is substantially level with a position of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall (Takahashi: Fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), Takuma (US 2010/0174397), Takahashi (US 2005/0133066), Verhaverbeke et al. (US 6,495,099) and Kim et al. (US 2005/0028842) referred to as Kim842, all of record, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2012/0248061) and Olesen et al. (US 5,656,097), both of record.
(Re Claim 13) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: after wet-etching the batch of wafers, transferring the batch of wafers from the processing chamber to the first treatment chamber; and soaking the batch of wafers in a second mixture comprising SC1 in the first treatment chamber.
Olesen teaches moving a wafer from first treatment chamber 10 to an adjacent processing chamber, and then back again (Col 11. Ln. 1-5).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to transfer the batch of wafers from the processing chamber to the first treatment chamber 100 of Yi, as taught by Olesen, in order to reduce the footprint of the machines performing these operations.
Additionally, Brown teaches that etching with phosphoric acid is a dirty process, and is typically followed by a SC1 step to remove particles that remain (¶37).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to soak the batch of wafers in a second mixture comprising SC1 in the first treatment chamber 100 of Yi as taught by Yi, after wet-etching the wafers as taught by Brown, so as to remove particles that remain after etching with phosphoric acid (Brown: ¶37).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), Takuma (US 2010/0174397), Takahashi (US 2005/0133066), Verhaverbeke et al. (US 6,495,099) and Kim et al. (US 2005/0028842) referred to as Kim842, all of record, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2012/0248061).
(Re Claim 14) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 12, but does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: after wet-etching the batch of wafers, transferring the batch of wafers from the processing chamber to a second treatment chamber; and soaking the batch of wafers in a second mixture comprising SC1 in the second treatment chamber.
However, Kim teaches transferring a batch of wafers after wet-etching from a processing chamber 20 to a second treatment chamber 30 (Fig. 1B, ¶9).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to transfer a batch of wafers from the processing chamber 20 taught by Kim to a second treatment chamber 30 as taught by Kim, in order to improve wafer throughput through the fab.
Additionally, Brown teaches that etching with phosphoric acid is a dirty process, and is typically followed by a SC1 step to remove particles that remain (¶37).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use for the structure of the second treatment chamber 30 of Kim, another treatment chamber 100 of Yi, soaking the batch of wafers in a second mixture comprising SC1 as taught by Yi, after wet-etching the wafers as taught by Brown, so as to remove particles that remain after etching with phosphoric acid (Brown: ¶37).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), Takuma (US 2010/0174397), Takahashi (US 2005/0133066), Verhaverbeke et al. (US 6,495,099) and Kim et al. (US 2005/0028842) referred to as Kim842, all of record, as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kedo et al. (US 6,219,936) of record.
(Re Claim 16) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach the method wherein drying the batch of wafers comprises using an isopropyl alcohol.
Kedo teaches using isopropyl alcohol to dry a batch of wafers (Fig. 1, Col. 9 Ln. 47-50).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to use the isopropyl alcohol drying unit as taught by Kedo for the drying unit 40 taught by Kim, so as to minimize particles generated during wafer processing.
(Re Claim 17) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the isopropyl alcohol is dispensed in a direction parallel to a surface of the batch of wafers (Fig. 2A shows nozzles 3d dispersing IPA in a direction parallel to a front or back surface of a batch of wafers 2).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), Kibi (US 2020/0365468), and Takuma (US 2010/0174397), all of record.
(Re Claim 21) Kim teaches a method, comprising: soaking a batch of the wafers (rinsing a group of wafers; Fig. 1B, ¶9) in a first cleaning liquid (deionized water; ¶9); transferring the batch of the wafers from a treatment chamber (10; Fig. 1B) to a processing chamber (20; Fig. 1B); and soaking the batch of the wafers in an etchant (phosphoric acid; ¶9) in the processing chamber.
Kim does not explicitly teach a method involving the referenced embodiment comprising:
forming structures over a batch of wafers;
sending a first cleaning liquid into a cavity in a treatment chamber through a first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber; soaking the batch of the wafers in the first cleaning liquid in the cavity in the treatment chamber; replacing the first cleaning liquid with a second cleaning liquid by sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity in the treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall of the treatment chamber, a position of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is substantially level with a position of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall, the first liquid channel is disconnected to the second liquid channel, wherein the batch of wafers remains at a same position in the cavity in the treatment chamber during replacing the first cleaning liquid with the second cleaning liquid; soaking the batch of the wafers in the second cleaning liquid in the treatment chamber; and
soaking the batch of the wafers in an etchant in the processing chamber so that a portion of each of the structures on the batch of the wafers is removed thereby forming a recess thereon.
Yi teaches sending a first mixture (the chemical solution, through the nozzles 300; ¶¶29, 33, and 48, Fig. 3) into a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a first treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3), wherein a first liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a first sidewall (left sidewall of 120; Fig. 3) of the first treatment chamber (Fig. 3 markup); a second liquid channel (Fig. 3 markup) is on a second sidewall (right sidewall of 120; Fig. 3); soaking a batch of wafers (W; Fig. 3, ¶28) in a first cleaning liquid (the chemical solution; ¶¶29, 48, Fig. 3) in a cavity (Fig. 3 markup) in a treatment chamber (100; Fig. 3); a first liquid channel (the left 140; see Fig. 3 markup); a second liquid channel (right 140; see Fig. 3 markup); and replacing the first cleaning liquid (¶48) with a second cleaning liquid (deionized water; ¶48), wherein the batch of wafers remains at a same position (“alternatively, instead of being fixed to the treating room 100”; ¶32) in the cavity in the treatment chamber during replacing the first cleaning liquid with the second cleaning liquid (“alternatively, instead of being fixed to the treating room 100”; ¶32).
Takuma teaches treating wafers with a first cleaning liquid (SC1 solution; Fig. 6, ¶44) followed by treating with a second cleaning liquid (Deionized water; Fig. 6, ¶44).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize the apparatus of Yi in order to perform the rinse bath step using deionized water taught by Kim, as Yi’s rinse step predictably cleans a batch of wafers using deionized water (Kim: ¶10), and also allows for reusing chemical solution that overflows the cavity (Yi: ¶32). See also Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to use SC1 to soak the batch of wafers in the apparatus of Yi before treating with deionized water, in order to remove particles or organic contaminates on the surfaces of the batch of wafers (Takuma: ¶44; Yi: ¶48), and because Yi states that the chemical solution may be an ammonium hydroxide solution (Yi: ¶29). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Modified Kim then teaches sending a first cleaning liquid (Takuma: SC1 solution; Yi: through nozzles 300; Fig. 3) into a cavity (Yi Fig. 3 markup) in a treatment chamber (Yi: 100), and replacing the first cleaning liquid with a second cleaning liquid (deionized water; Yi: ¶48).
Modified Kim then also teaches soaking the batch of wafers in a first cleaning liquid (Takuma: SC1 solution) in the cavity (Yi Fig. 3 markup) in the treatment chamber (Yi: 100), and replacing the first cleaning liquid with a second cleaning liquid (deionized water; Yi: ¶48), wherein the batch of wafers remains in a same position in the cavity in the treatment chamber during replacing the first cleaning liquid with the second cleaning liquid; and soaking the batch of wafers in the second cleaning liquid in the treatment chamber.
When the first cleaning liquid is selected, this results in sending the first cleaning liquid into the cavity of the treatment chamber through the first liquid channel on a first sidewall of the treatment chamber (left sidewall of Yi’s 120); and when the second cleaning liquid is selected, this results in sending the second cleaning liquid into the cavity of the treatment chamber through a second liquid channel on a second sidewall (right sidewall of Yi’s 120), wherein a position (Yi: topmost surface; Fig. 3) of the first liquid channel on the first sidewall is substantially level with a position (Yi: topmost surface; Fig. 3) of the second liquid channel on the second sidewall (Yi: Fig. 3). Also, the first liquid channel is disconnected to the second liquid channel (see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above).
Modified Kim has yet to explicitly teach forming structures over a batch of wafers; and soaking the batch of the wafers in an etchant in the processing chamber so that a portion of each of the structures on the batch of the wafers is removed thereby forming a recess portion.
Kibi teaches forming structures (P-FET structures each comprised of 2, 14, and 161 shown in Fig. 35; there are multiples of this structure in the wafer as shown in Fig. 4 ¶¶71, 75), and then etching the same structures such that a recess is formed thereon (Fig. 37 demonstrates a recess formed in the structures by etching silicon nitride layers 101 and 161; the recess is between the two leaders for elements 14; batch type wet etching as disclosed in ¶293).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form structures over the batch of wafers as taught by Kibi when it is desired that the wafer possesses some electrical function.
Additionally, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to etch the structures on the wafers so that a portion of each of the structures is removed, forming a recess thereon, as taught by Kibi, so as to form Fin-FETs as taught by Kibi, which give the wafers electrical functions.
PNG
media_image1.png
766
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 23) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 21, further comprising: drying the batch of the wafers in a drying chamber (40; Fig. 1B).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), Kibi (US 2020/0365468), and Takuma (US 2010/0174397), all of record, as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2012/0248061) and Olesen et al. (US 5,656,097), both of record.
(Re Claim 22) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach the method further comprising: after the recesses are formed, transferring the batch of the wafers from the processing chamber to the treatment chamber; and soaking the batch of the wafers in a third cleaning liquid in the treatment chamber.
Olesen teaches moving a wafer from first treatment chamber 10 to an adjacent processing chamber, and then back again (Col 11. Ln. 1-5).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to transfer the batch of wafers from the processing chamber to the first treatment chamber 100 of Yi, as taught by Olesen, in order to reduce the footprint of the machines performing these operations.
Additionally, Brown teaches that etching with phosphoric acid is a dirty process, and is typically followed by a SC1 step to remove particles that remain (¶37).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to soak the batch of wafers in a third cleaning liquid comprising SC1 in the first treatment chamber 100 of Yi, as taught by Yi, after wet-etching the wafers as taught by Brown, so as to remove particles that remain after etching with phosphoric acid (Brown: ¶37).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2004/0222191), Yi et al. (US 2007/0169795), and Rayandayan et al. (US 2006/0054181), and Takuma (US 2010/0174397), all of record, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 6,273,099) of record.
(Re Claim 27) Modified Kim teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method wherein a time period of soaking the batch of wafers in the first cleaning liquid is longer than a time period of soaking the batch of wafers in the heated second cleaning liquid.
Chang teaches soaking wafers in SC1 (the first cleaning liquid) for 10 minutes and in heated DI water (heated second cleaning liquid) for about 2 to 5 minutes (Fig. 1, col. 3 ln. 37, col. 3 ln. 62-67).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to utilize these process times for the first and second cleaning liquid to eliminate the need for an SC2 treatment (Chang: abstract). Also, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new rejection.
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 Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached on (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights