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 Invention I and Species I in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5-39 are canceled and claims 40-44 are newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 40-44 have been fully considered in examination.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
In claim 3, the term “CICE etchant” is unclear because it implies catalyst-influenced chemical etching, but the claim does not recite a catalyst or define its relationship to the etchant.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kong (Kong, Lingyu, Sing Yang Chiam, and Wai Kin Chim. “Metal-Assisted Silicon Chemical Etching Using Self-Assembled Sacrificial Nickel Nanoparticles Template for Antireflection Layers in Photovoltaic and Light-Trapping Devices.” ACS applied nano materials 2.11 (2019): 7025–7031. Web.).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches a method for fabricating silicon nanostructures (Fig. 1(c), method for nanostructure fabrication), the method comprising:
depositing an etch uniformity improving layer on a substrate (depositing SiO2 layer on the substrate);
depositing a catalyst on said substrate or said etch uniformity improving layer (depositing sacrificial metal Nickel layer coated with gold catalyst), wherein said catalyst layer is contacting a portion of said substrate or said etch uniformity improving layer (Au catalyst is in contact with SiO2 layer in between the Nickel layer); and
exposing said catalyst as well as said substrate or said etch uniformity improving layer to an etchant, wherein said catalyst causes etching of said substrate thereby creating etched nanostructures (using an etchant to perform a metal assisted chemical etching, MacEtch to exposes, the AU catalyst and the SiO2 layer to the etchant in order to etch the Si substrate to form the SiNW2).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said catalyst comprises one or more of the following: Au, Pt, Pd, Mo, Ru, Ir, Ag, Cu, Ni, W, TiN, TaN, RuO2, IrO2, graphene, Ti, and carbon (Fig. 1(c), Au catalyst).
Regarding claim 3, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said etch uniformity layer comprises a material that gets etched in an influenced chemical etching (CICE) etchant (Fig. 1(c), using the etchant to perform the metal assisted chemical etching to expose and remove the SiO2 layer from the Si substrate).
Regarding claim 4, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said etch uniformity layer is thermally grown silicon oxide having a thickness greater than 5 nm or is a native silicon oxide layer (Fig. 1(c), the SiO2 layer is deposited by growing into a thickness of 80 nm).
Regarding claim 43, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein said nanostructures are formed in a silicon layer which is itself on a non-silicon layer (Fig. 1(c), etched nanostructures are formed in a silicon substrate which is itself on a silicon oxide layer).
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 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (Kong, Lingyu, Sing Yang Chiam, and Wai Kin Chim. “Metal-Assisted Silicon Chemical Etching Using Self-Assembled Sacrificial Nickel Nanoparticles Template for Antireflection Layers in Photovoltaic and Light-Trapping Devices.” ACS applied nano materials 2.11 (2019): 7025–7031. Web.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qin (CN110873733A).
Regarding claim 41, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1 respectively, but does not specify further comprising: depositing a material conformally on said etched nanostructures.
However, Qin teaches further comprising: depositing a material conformally on said etched nanostructures (Fig. 1, cuprous oxide coating structure).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify a method for nanostructure fabrication of Kong (Kong, Lingyu, Sing Yang Chiam, and Wai Kin Chim. “Metal-Assisted Silicon Chemical Etching Using Self-Assembled Sacrificial Nickel Nanoparticles Template for Antireflection Layers in Photovoltaic and Light-Trapping Devices.” ACS applied nano materials 2.11 (2019): 7025–7031. Web.) and further integrating the method for silicon nanowire array including cuprous oxide coating structure by Qin (CN110873733A). The combination of these familiar elements can improve the response sensitivity of the sensor (See summary of invention from translated foreign document).
Regarding claim 42, Kong in view of Qin teaches the method as recited in claim 41, wherein said deposited material is one or more of the following: titanium dioxide, aluminum oxide, palladium, platinum, tungsten, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, copper, SiNx, SnOx, and ZnOx (Fig. 2 of Qin, Nanowire agglomeration interconnected array structure; Cu2O particles are attached to the top of each agglomerate to form a "welded" structure, and the interconnection between different "welded" clusters and adjacent clusters is formed by the nanowires between each other.).
Claims 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (Kong, Lingyu, Sing Yang Chiam, and Wai Kin Chim. “Metal-Assisted Silicon Chemical Etching Using Self-Assembled Sacrificial Nickel Nanoparticles Template for Antireflection Layers in Photovoltaic and Light-Trapping Devices.” ACS applied nano materials 2.11 (2019): 7025–7031. Web.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US20160126133A1).
Regarding claim 40, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1 respectively, but does not specify said etched nanostructures are designed to avoid collapse.
However Li teaches controlling the etching process to form substantially vertical nanostructures having controlled sidewall angles (Para [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to control the geometry and processing conditions of the nanostructures formed by Kong as taught by Li in order to avoid structural collapse, since preventing collapse is a known design consideration in the fabrication of high aspect ratio nanostructures. The recitation “designed to avoid substantial collapse” merely reflects a non-limiting intended result, See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 44, Kong teaches the method as recited in claim 1, forming silicon nanostructures via metal-assisted chemical etching (MACE) (Fig. 1(c)).
But Kong does not teach a nanostructure wall angle of one of said nanostructures is greater than 89.5 degrees at all points on a side wall except for a top and a bottom of said side wall.
However, Li teaches metal-assisted chemical etching can be used to form substantially vertical deep trenches and nanostructures including the sidewall angle of 90 degree (Para [0071]), and that the sidewall angle of the resulting structures can be controlled (i.e., tunable) through process parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to control the etching conditions of Kong to achieve a nearly vertical sidewall angle, such as greater than 89.5 degrees, as taught by Li (US20160126133A1), since achieving vertical sidewall is a known desirable result for high aspect ratio nanostructures.
The selection of a particular sidewall angle, such as greater than 89.5 degree, would have been a matter of routine optimization of result-effective variable, See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAHAE KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1844. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on (571) 271-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JAHAE KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights