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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/16/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 09/16/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending in the current office action. Claim 1 has been amended by the applicant.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
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, 2, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 20100270554 A1) in view of Bjelopavlic et al. (US 20220081616 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hong teaches a method of performing a selective etch on an array substrate (Paragraph [0053], where it is taught that an array substrate is selectively etched to remove a first buffer pattern and first wiring pattern), wherein the array substrate has a substrate (Paragraph [0049], Figure 4, substrate element 110) and a component layer disposed on the substrate (Paragraph [0049], Figure 4, where a component layer may comprise the taught layers: first wiring pattern, element WP1, and/or first buffer pattern, element BF1, that are on the substrate), wherein the method comprises:
placing the array substrate into the second solution to remove the component layer (Paragraphs [0053], Figures 4 and 5, where it is taught that an “etchant” removes the layers: element BF1, a first buffer pattern, and element WF1, a first wiring pattern, from the substrate. Paragraph [0050] teaches that the “etchant” is used in a wet-etch process. Examiner takes the position that using a wet-etching process to remove a layer from a substrate includes placing a substrate into the solution, as a substrate must be in a solution for a wet-etching to take place), and
forming an aging second solution (Examiner takes the position that the step of etching, which is taught by the prior art as outlined above, forms the claimed “aging second solution” and therefore the prior art meets this limitation); and
taking out the substrate from the aging second solution (Paragraph [0055] teaches a following process step of forming additional layers onto the substrate, which would require removing the substrate from the solution, thereby meeting this limitation).
Hong fails to teach a specific etchant composition, beyond that the etchant may include fluorine (Paragraph [0050]). Therefore, Hong fails to teach a first solution that contains deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and an acid, wherein the acid comprises sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid or a combination thereof, and Hong fails to teach a second solution where an alkoxy silane has been added to the first solution.
Bjelopavlic teaches an etching composition (Paragraph [0013]). Bjelopavlic teaches that the composition includes deionized water (Paragraph [0030]), hydrogen peroxide (Paragraph [0015], where hydrogen peroxide is taught as a suitable oxidizing agent), sulfuric acid (Paragraph [0017], where sulfuric acid is taught as a suitable catalyst), and an alkoxy silane (Paragraph [0034], where examples include methyltrimethoxysilane, which is an alkoxy silane). The etching composition taught by Bjelopavlic was taught to be suitable for etching a substrate and providing etching selectively against silicon oxides (Paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method taught by Hong by replacing the etchant used to remove component layers from the substrate with the etching composition taught by Bjelopavlic.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The etching composition taught by Bjelopavlic would have the predictable result of etching component layers in the method taught by Hong. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the etchant taught by Hong with etching composition taught by Bjelopavlic since this composition is known as an etching composition and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.07.
Hong modified by Bjelopavlic as outlined above fails to explicitly teach mixing deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and an acid to prepare a first solution, wherein the first solution consists of deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and the acid, and then adding an alkoxy silane compound to the first solution to prepare a second solution.
However, Bjelopavlic teaches that the etching composition can be formed by first preparing two compositions and then blending the two compositions together (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition 1a consisting of deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and an acid (where the acid is sulfuric acid) and a composition 1b comprising an alkoxy silane and any additional components, and then mixing the compositions 1a and 1b to create the full composition. Through this process, the taught preparation of composition 1a would meet the limitation of “mixing deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and an acid to prepare a first solution, wherein the first solution consists of deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and the acid, wherein the acid is sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or a combination thereof” and the mixing of compositions 1a and 1b to create the full composition would meet the limitation of “adding an alkoxy silane compound to the first solution to prepare a second solution.”
The process outlined above would have been obvious to try because Bjelopavlic teaches preparing two compositions and mixing them together to create the final etching composition for use, and further teaches a limited number of components suitable for use in the final etching composition. By providing a limited number of components within the final etching composition, Bjelopavlic has provided a finite number of potential compositions 1a and 1b that could be combined to create the final etching composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in trying the various compositions for 1a and 1b as Bjelopavlic teaches this is a suitable way to prepare the etching composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 2, Bjelopavlic fails to teach an embodiment where in the first solution, a ratio of the deionized water, the hydrogen peroxide, and the acid is 1:1:0.5 to 0.2:0.5:1.
However, Bjelopavlic teaches that water is to be included at 10-50% (Paragraph [0030]), hydrogen peroxide is to be included at 5-20% (Paragraph [0016]), and sulfuric acid is to be included at 0.1-5% (Paragraph [0021]). When deionized water is included at 10%, hydrogen peroxide is included at 10%, and sulfuric acid is included at 5% and these three components are mixed as composition 1a, as outlined above, they form a ratio of 1:1:0.5 meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated deionized water at 10%, hydrogen peroxide at 10%, and sulfuric acid at 5%, which is within the disclosed range of each, resulting in a ratio of deionized water : hydrogen peroxide : acid 1:1:0.5 that overlaps with the claimed range of 1:1:0.5 to 0.2:0.5: 1. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, differences in concentration will generally not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use concentration of deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and acid such that they had a ratio within the claimed range of 1:1:0.5 to 0.2:0.5:1 because the deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and acid will function in a predictable manner given these conditions.
Regarding Claim 6, Bjelopavlic teaches wherein the alkoxy silane compound is a compound represented by Formula 1: R4m-Si-(O(CH2nCH3]m wherein R is hydrogen, alkyl, alkoxy, phenyl, epoxy or a combination thereof, m is a positive integer from 1 to 3, and n is 0 or a positive integer. (Paragraph [0034] where methyltrimethoxysilane, which meets the claimed limitations, is taught as a suitable silane)
Regarding Claim 8, Hong teaches wherein a material of the substrate is glass (Paragraph [0037], Figure 1-5, where it is taught that the insulation substrate, element 110, may include glass).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gon et al. (WO 2019188747 A1).
Modified Hong teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Hong and Bjelopavlic fail to teach that in preparing the first solution, the deionized water, the hydrogen peroxide, and the acid are mixed by ultrasonic vibration. Bjelopavlic teaches that the solution is to be mixed by fails to provide any specific details on how to mix the solution.
Gon teaches a composition for use in the production of semiconductor substrates (Paragraph [0001]). Gon teaches that in the mixing of the composition an ultrasonic disperser is to be used (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method outlined above in regards to claim 1, such that an ultrasonic vibration was used to mix the first solution.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The base method of modified Hong would have been improved by the use of ultrasonic vibration in the mixing of the first solution and this improvement would have had the predictable result of mixing the solution adequately. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US-20160185595-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bjelopavlic fails to teach an embodiment where a concentration of the alkoxy silane compound in the second solution is 20 g/l to 120 g/l. Bjelopavlic teaches that water is to be included at 10-50% (Paragraph [0030]), hydrogen peroxide is to be included at 5-20% (Paragraph [0016]), and sulfuric acid is to be included at 0.1-5% (Paragraph [0021]). Bjelopavlic further teaches that an organic acid, of which formic acid is given as an example, can be include in the etching composition (Paragraph [0022]) and that the organic acid is to be included in the composition at an amount of 30-90% (Paragraph [0023]). Hydrogen peroxide has a density of 1.11 g/cm^3 (Reference Document: Pubchem – Hydrogen Peroxide). Water has a density of 1g/cm^3 (Reference Document: Pubchem – Water). Sulfuric acid has a density of 1.84g/cm^ (Reference Document: Pubchem – Sulfuric Acid). Formic acid has a density of 1.22g/cm^3 (Reference Document: Pubchem – Formic Acid). Given these densities and ranges the taught composition has a density range of 1.09g/cm^3 (where the composition is 19.9% hydrogen peroxide, 50% water, 0.1% sulfuric acid, and 30% formic acid: (0.199*1.11)+(0.5*1)+(0.1*1.84)+(0.3*1.22)=1.09) to 1.22g/cm^3 (where the composition is 5% hydrogen peroxide, 10% water, 5% sulfuric acid, and 80% formic acid: (0.05*1.11)+(0.1*1)+(0.05*1.84)+(0.8*1.22)=1.22). Bjelopavlic further teaches that alkoxy silane is included in the composition at an amount of 0.001-0.5% (Paragraph [0035]). Therefore, within 1 liter of etching solution the alkoxy silane is included at an amount ranging from 0.01g/L (1.09*1000*0.00001=0.01) to 6.1g/L (1.22*1000*0.005=6.1).
Chen teaches a composition for use in selective etching (Paragraph [0001]). Chen teaches that the composition comprises a passivating agent that can be an alkoxysilane (Paragraph 0027]). Chen teaches that the passivating agent should be included in the etching composition from about 0.001% to 2% (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition taught by Bjelopavlic such that the alkoxy silane was included at an amount taught by Chen. When this modification is done then the concentration of the alkoxy silane in the second solution is 0.01g/L (1.09*1000*0.00001=0.01) to 24.4g/L (1.22*1000*0.02=24.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the alkoxy silane at a level within the disclosed range of 0.01-24.4 g/L, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 20-120g/L. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Both Bjelopavlic and Chen teach the use of alkoxy silanes in etching compositions and the alkoxy silane would perform the same function, while the use of the amount taught by Chen would have the predictable result of having more alkoxy silane in the solution. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature generally will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the alkoxy silane at a concentration of 20-120 g/L because the alkoxy silane will function at these higher loading levels in the same manner as it would have at lower loading levels taught.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gon and Shinoda et al. (US 20190077991 A1).
Modified Hong as outlined above teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hong and Bjelopavlic fail to teach that in preparing the second solution, the first solution and the alkoxy silane compound are mixed by ultrasonic vibration.
Gon teaches a composition for use in the production of semiconductor substrates (Paragraph [0001]). Gon teaches that in the production of the composition an ultrasonic disperser is to be used (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method outlined above in regards to claim 1, such that an ultrasonic vibration was used to prepare the second solution.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The base method of modified Hong would have been improved by the use of ultrasonic vibration in the mixing of the first solution and this improvement would have had the predictable result of mixing the solution adequately. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The method as outlined above teaches mixing the solution with an ultrasonic disperser but fails to teach mixing at a temperature of 40° C to 95° C and during a time period of 0.5 hour to 2 hours.
Shinoda teaches a composition for use in semiconductor manufacturing (Paragraphs [0001-0002]). Shinoda teaches that composition should be mix at a temperature of 0-60°C for a duration of 1 second to 180 minutes (Paragraph [0104]).
It would have been obvious to have modified the method outlined above by conducting the mixing within the temperature range and for the duration taught by Shinoda.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known method to yield predictable results. Using the mixing conditions taught by Shinoda would have had the predictable result of creating an adequately mixed solution. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Additionally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a mixing temperature of 40-95°C because the mixing of the solution will occur in a predictable manner given these conditions.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hooper et al. (US 20130089701 A1).
Modified Hong as outlined above teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hong is silent on the process conditions used to remove the component layer, and therefore fails to teach that in removing the component layer, the second solution is reacted with the array substrate by ultrasonic vibration at a temperature of 40° C to 95° C and during a time period of 0.5 hour to 48 hours as required by the instant claim.
Hooper teaches a method of etching with a solution (Paragraph [0003]). Hooper teaches that during the etching the solution can be 0-150°C, that the etching solution can be agitated by ultrasonic vibration, and that the etching can take from 30 seconds to 1 hour (Paragraph 0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have altered the method of modified Hong such that the etching process to remove the component layer used the process conditions taught by Hooper.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable results. The use of the etching process conditions taught by Hooper would have had the predictable result of etching the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a solution temperature at a level within the disclosed range of 0-150°C, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 40-95°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an etching duration at a level within the disclosed range of 30 seconds to 1 hour, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 30 minutes to 48 hours. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use an etching temperature of 40-95°C because the etching will occur in a predictable manner given these conditions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (TW-I658994-B) and Asai et al. (WO-2016194614-A1).
Modified Hong as outlined above teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Hong and Bjelopavlic are silent in their teachings on further steps that include the aging second solution and therefore fail to teach that after taking out the substrate from the aging second solution, the method further comprises the following steps: adding an ion adsorbent to the aging second solution to prepare a third solution, wherein a concentration of the ion adsorbent in the third solution is 10 g/l to 100 g/l; removing the ion adsorbent from the third solution to prepare a fourth solution; and adding the deionized water, the hydrogen peroxide, and the acid or a combination thereof to the fourth solution to prepare the second solution.
Lin teaches a method of removing ions from an etching solution (Paragraph [0008]). Lin teaches the use of an ion adsorbent (Paragraph [0010], where the taught "extractant" is used to adsorb copper ions). Lin teaches adding the ion adsorbent to the etching solution (Paragraph [0009], where it is taught that the “extractant”, equivalent to the claimed ion adsorbent, is added to the “waste liquid”, equivalent to the claimed second solution, thereby forming the claimed third solution). Lin teaches removing the ion adsorbent (Paragraph [0009] where it is taught that the extractant is transferred to a regeneration reaction tank and the forming “the waste liquid from which the copper ions have been removed” which is equivalent to the claimed fourth solution).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have altered the method of modified Hong, as outlined above in regards to claim 1, by further adding an ion adsorbent to the aging second solution to prepare a third solution and then removing the ion adsorbent from the third solution to prepare a fourth solution, as taught by Lin.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The additional method steps taught by Lin would have had the predictable result of removing the ions from the etching solution. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Additionally, this modification would regenerate the etching solution by removing etched ions that would eventually saturate the etching solution and reduce the efficiency of the etching solution or prevent it from etching entirely over time. This would provide a motivation to one skilled in the art to make this modification, as it would allow one to use the etching solution for a longer time than otherwise would be possible.
Lin is silent on the concentration of ion adsorbent to be added.
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use 10g/L to 100g/L of ion adsorbent because the ion adsorbent will function is a predictable manner given these conditions. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentration of ion adsorbents added, as each specific process would result in a certain amount of ions that have been etched in the previous steps and therefore a certain amount of ion that would need to be adsorbed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentration of ion adsorbents added to fit the needs of the specific situation.
Lin teaches that “the waste liquid from which the copper ions have been removed” (equivalent to the claimed fourth solution) is discharged from the extraction reaction tank (Paragraph [0009]), but is otherwise silent on what is to be done with this solution.
Asai teaches a composition for use in production of electronic devices (Paragraph [0004]). Asai teaches that after a composition has been used, it can be recycled for reuse (Paragraph [0038]). Asai teaches that when a composition is recycled, some components are consumed and lost during use and that components from the composition should be added back to the composition to create a solution that is suitable for reuse (Paragraph [0039]).
It would have been obvious to modify the method outlined above by taking the “the waste liquid from which the copper ions have been removed” (equivalent to the claimed fourth solution) and adding components from the solution in order to make it suitable for reuse, as taught by Asai. The second solution has been identified as suitable for use by the prior art as outlined in regards to claim 1. Therefore, the components of the second solution will need to be added to the fourth solution in order to prepare the second solution and thereby deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and the acid will be added to the fourth solution as required by the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong, Bjelopavlic, Lin and Asai as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gon and Baek et al. (CN-110028971-B).
Modified Hong, as outlined above, meets all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Lin further teaches that the ion adsorbent (the taught “extractant”) should be mixed with the aging second solution (the taught “waste liquid”) for 0.1 to 60 minutes (Paragraph [0017], where it is taught that the extraction reaction should be 0.1 to 60 minutes, and Paragraph [0009] where the extraction reaction is described to include the mixing of the extractant and waste liquid).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a mixing duration within the disclosed range of 0.1 to 60 minutes, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 30 minutes to 48 hours. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Lin fails to teach that the preparation of the third solution should use ultrasonic vibration.
Gon teaches a composition for use in the production of semiconductor substrates (Paragraph [0001]). Gon teaches that in the production of the composition an ultrasonic disperser is to be used (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method outlined above such that an ultrasonic vibration was used to prepare the third solution as taught by Gon.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The base method outlined would have been improved by the use of ultrasonic vibration in the mixing of the aging second solution and the ion adsorbent and this improvement would have had the predictable result of mixing the third solution adequately. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The method outlined above fails to teach that the preparation of the third solution should be done at room temperature.
Baek teaches an etching composition for use in the manufacturing of semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0002]). Baek teaches a method of mixing an etching composition that includes mixing the solution at room temperature (Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method outlined above such that the mixing of the third solution was conducted at room temperature.
This modification would have been obvious because it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The use of room temperature during the preparation of the third solution would have had the predictable result of providing an acceptable temperature for mixing. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Additionally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here 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." MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use room temperature as the temperature for the preparation of the third solution as the mixing of the third solution would occur is a predictable manner under these conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 3-8, filed 09/16/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach that the claimed first solution consists of deionized water, hydrogen peroxide, and the acid, in particular noting that embodiments of the compositions taught by Hong or Bjelopavlic include a fluorine-containing component.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as claimed, the “first solution” is formed as a step in the formation of the claimed “second solution” that is then used in the etching step. As outlined in the rejection above, Bjelopavlic teaches a composition that includes all the components of the claimed second solution (by definition including those within the claimed first solution) as well as a process by which the second solution is formed by pre-mixing two separate solutions. Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art such that the claimed limitations were met.
Applicant argues that the prior art teaches away or fails to teach “the core of the amended claim 1” stating that this is “highly selectively removing the component layer while effectively protecting the substrate from etching”. To support this, applicant notes that Bjelopavlic teaches that a fluorine-containing acid can increase the removal of dielectric materials such as silicon oxides.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that what is being argued and recited as the core of the amended claim 1, is not claimed by claim 1 or any of the dependent claims. Examiner further notes that Bjelopavlic provides the warning regarding a fluorine-containing acid being able to etch silicon oxides, in the context of teaching a suitable range of weight percent of the fluorine-containing acid within the composition and noting that the amount included should be limited in order to minimize the etching of dielectric materials, with the goal of selectively etching other materials (Bjelopavlic Paragraph [0014]).
Applicant argues that the conclusion of obviousness regarding the combination of Hong and Bjelopavlic is the result of impermissible hindsight.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the rejection above, examiner takes the position that one of ordinary skill in the art could have selected the composition taught by Bjelopavlic for use within the method of Hong in such a way that the claimed limitations would be met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713