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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5, as to the point that the combined teaching fail to disclose the specified nitrite compound as currently amended claim 1, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Collins, applicants argue that Collins provide no motivation for ordinary skill in the art to modify teaching of Wada et al, while Collins discloses that using their composition to etch or remove unwanted metals, while etching surrounding materials.
In response, examiner stats that both Wada and Collins are dealing with etching a structure comprising formed of such materials as silicon, doped silicon, polysilicon, doped polysilicon, Silicon-Germanium (SiGe), silicon dioxide, silicon nitride and other materials which may be present ([0006] in Collins) and etching a material comprises silicon germanium (SiGe) (see 0010] in Wada).
Therefore, they are in related filed and Collilns teaches using such composition including nitrogen oxide compound (namely n-butylnitrite, t-butylnitrite, sec-butyl nitrite, see [0050],[0051] in collins) have the composition has a selectivity to the one or more silicides, polysilicon, silicon, silicon-germanium, nitrides and oxides in the range from about 10:1 to about 5000:1; and one can use for removing unwanted metals as suggested by Collins [0034].
However, modified rejections applies as the amended to the claim 1:
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al (US 2021/0198572) in view of Collins et al (US 2008/0116170).
With regards to claims 1-2, Wada et al disclose an etching composition comprises hydrofluoric acid, nitric acid and water [0018]-[0026].
Wada et al disclose that the etching solution of the present embodiment may include other components in addition to the components described above in a range in which the effects of the present invention are not impaired. Examples of other components include solvents, phosphoric acid and/or derivatives thereof, pH adjusters, passivation agents, surfactants, and the like [0029]; the etching composition may contain a polar solvent, such as, organic carboxylic acid solvents (for example, acetic acid, formic acid, and the like) [0032]; and acetic acid is preferable [0033].
Unlike the instant invention, Wada et al fail to disclose the composition comprises a nitrite compound as listed in the claim 1.
However, Collins et al disclose an etch composition, which is selective to one or more of silicides, polysilicon, silicon, silicon-germanium, nitrides and oxides [0010] and the composition comprises organic nitrite compound [0011]; and suitable organic nitrites include, e.g., alkyl, aralkyl and aryl nitrites. Suitable alkyl nitrites include, for example, n-butylnitrite, t-butylnitrite, sec-butyl nitrite [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Collins et al's teaching of introducing nitride compound into the modified teaching of Wada et al for removing unwanted contaminants as suggested by Collins et al [0034].
Regarding claim 5, the selective etching rate of silicon to silicon oxide is purely intended use of the composition and modified Wada et al’s composition includes all the components having all the claimed components and expected to be capable of selectively etching silicon over silicon oxide film as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Wada et al disclose that the content ratio of hydrofluoric acid in the entire etching solution is 0.002% by mass or more and 1.0% by mass or less [0020]; The content ratio of nitric acid in the entire etching solution is 10% by mass or more, preferably 10% by mass or more and 55% by mass or less [0023]; phosphoric acid content 1 to 40% by mass with respect to the total mass of the etching solution [0041]; and polar organic solvent may be acetic acid [0033] and the content of the polar organic solvent is, for example, 10 to 90% by mass with respect to the total mass of the etching solution, preferably 11 to 85% by mass, and more preferably 12 to 80% by mass [0035]; and Collins et al disclose the nitrite compound as component (b) [0050], [0051] and the component (b) is comprised in the selective wet etch composition of the present invention in a range from 0.1 to about 20 wt. % of the total composition [0060]; and aforesaid all the ranges overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Wada et al disclose the content ratio of hydrofluoric acid in the entire etching solution is 0.002% by mass or more and 1.0% by mass or less [0020]; and aforesaid overlaps the claimed range and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachowicz et al (US 2013/0255772) in view of Collins et al (US 2008/0116170).
Regardign claims 1-2, Lachowicz et al disclose an etching composition for silicon comprises hydrofluoric acid (HF), nitric acid (HNO3), phosphoric acid [0010],[0012]; the composition may also comprises a nitrite compound [0013];and optionally contain organic additives such as acetic acid [0038].
Unlike the instant invention, Lachowicz et al fail to disclose the composition comprises a nitrite compound as listed in the claim 1.
However, Collins et al disclose an etch composition, which is selective to one or more of silicides, polysilicon, silicon, silicon-germanium, nitrides and oxides [0010] and the composition comprises organic nitrite compound [0011]; and suitable organic nitrites include, e.g., alkyl, aralkyl and aryl nitrites. Suitable alkyl nitrites include, for example, n-butylnitrite, t-butylnitrite, sec-butyl nitrite [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Collins et al's teaching of introducing nitride compound into the modified teaching of Lachowicz et al for removing unwanted contaminants as suggested by Collins et al [0034].
Regarding claim 5, the selective etching rate of silicon to silicon oxide is purely intended use of the composition and modified Lachowicz et al’s composition includes all the components having all the claimed components and expected to be capable of selectively etching silicon over silicon oxide film as claimed.
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 SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights