The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
DETAILED ACTION
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 5-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2017/0338341) in view of Mahgerefteh et al. (2009/0003842) and Jung (2010/0167459).Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text a display device comprising: a method of forming an apparatus, comprising:
forming a silicon carbide material 134 on a patterned material 131/141;
subjecting the silicon carbide material to a plasma to expose horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to the plasma (see paragraph [0040];
exposing the silicon carbide material to an etchant to selectively remove the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material that are exposed to the plasma without substantially removing vertical portions of the silicon carbide material (see figure 2F);
the vertical portions of the silicon carbide material exhibiting substantially vertical sidewalls having a first sidewall proximal to the patterned material and a second sidewall distal from the patterned material, and
the vertical portions of the silicon carbide material comprising an angle defined by an intersection between an upper surface of the vertical portion and the second sidewall of the vertical portion; and removing the patterned material to form a pattern of the silicon carbide material (see figure 2K).
Wang does not teach exposing the silicon carbide material to a wet etchant and wherein the vertical portions of the silicon carbide material comprising an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees.
Mahgerefteh et al. teach in related text that it is well-known in the art to use a dry etch process and a wet etchant together.
Jung teaches in related text the advantages of using a dry etch process and a wet etchant together.
Wang, Jung and Mahgerefteh et al. are analogous art because they are directed to methods of forming semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wamg because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to expose the silicon carbide material to dry and wet etchant such that the vertical portions of the silicon carbide material comprising an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees, as taught by Jung and Mahgerefteh et al. in Wang’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using well-known etching process and by using only one etching process, and by using well known materials.
Regarding the claimed limitations of using specific materials, it is noted that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
It is further held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the claimed limitation of forming an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees, in prior art’s device in order to optimize the operation of the device because it is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker. The failures of experimenters who have no interest in succeeding should not be accorded great weight. In re Michalek, 162 F.2d 229, 232 (CCPA 1947); In re Reid, 179 F.2d 998, 1002 (CCPA 1950).
It is further noted that applicants do not assert unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range.
“When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims . . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results”.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that subjecting the silicon carbide material to the dry etch process comprising the plasma to expose horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to the plasma comprises reducing a carbon content of the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material, and
wherein reducing the carbon content of the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material comprises converting the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to be substantially free of carbon.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to expose the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to a wet etchant by exposing the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to an aqueous hydrofluoric acid (HF) solution, in Wang’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using well known etching material.
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that subjecting the silicon carbide material to a plasma to expose horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to the plasma comprises subjecting the silicon carbide material to an oxygen plasma.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that subjecting the silicon carbide material to a plasma to expose horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material comprises exposing the horizontal portions of the silicon carbide material to the plasma without substantially exposing vertical portions of the silicon carbide material to the plasma.
Regarding claims 8-9, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the silicon carbide material on a patterned material comprises forming the silicon carbide material comprising a carbon content of from about 0.1 atomic percent to about 20 atomic percent, and to form the silicon carbide material to exhibit a thickness within a range of from about 1 nm to about 15 nm, in Wang’s device, in order to adjust the device characteristics according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that forming a silicon carbide material on a patterned material comprises forming the silicon carbide material to exhibit a substantially uniform thickness (at least part thereof).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that forming a silicon carbide material on a patterned material comprises forming silicon carbide or silicon carbon oxide on the patterned material.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the pattern of the silicon carbide material as a mask to remove exposed portions of the patternable material, in Wang’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by eliminating the step of forming a mask.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that removing the patterned material to form a pattern of the silicon carbide material comprises forming the pattern of the silicon carbide material exhibits exhibiting substantially vertical sidewalls.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that removing the patterned material to form a pattern of the silicon carbide material comprises forming the pattern of the silicon carbide material comprising corners of the-silicon-carbide material are substantially square (at least the external corners) in cross-section.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches in figures 2A-2K and related text that removing the patterned material to form a pattern of the silicon carbide material comprises forming the pattern of the silicon carbide material comprising substantially similar heights of the silicon carbide material.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that “Even if Mahgerefteh teaches the use of a dry etch process and a wet etchant together as asserted by the Examiner, Mahgerefteh does not teach or suggest using a dry etch process and a wet etchant on the silicon carbide as recited in the method of amended claim 1 - rather, Mahgerefteh teaches using such a combination of etching processes on the strain compensated InGaAlAs/InGaAsP, which is a different material than silicon carbide”.
1. Although Mahgerefteh teaches using wet and dry etch on InGaAlAs/InGaAsP and not on silicon carbide, etching is routinely performed on any semiconductor material.
2. Applicants argue that “Mahgerefteh expressly teaches its process must be used together with an InP etch stop layer”.
2. Although Mahgerefteh’s teaches that its process must be used together with an InP etch stop layer”, there is no limitation in the industry that etching must always be performed with an InP etch stop layer. Many etch stop layers can be used with etching.
3. Applicants argue that “Mahgerefteh does not teach or suggest that its etching process could provide the material comprising an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees defined by an intersection between an upper surface of the vertical portion and the second sidewall of the vertical portion”.
3. The rejection does not allege that Mahgerefteh teaches that its etching process could provide the material comprising an angle a of between about 88 degrees and about 93 degrees defined by an intersection between an upper surface of the vertical portion and the second sidewall of the vertical portion”.
4. Applicants argue that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PE-nitride and oxide film of Jung are different than silicon carbide recited in amended claim 1”.
4. The examiner agrees that “PE-nitride and oxide film of Jung are different than silicon carbide”. However, as discussed above, etching can apply to any semiconductor material.
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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
9/24/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
