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 § 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oseki et al. (CN-111615741-A referred as Oseki) in view of Nagaya et al. (WO-2020022391-A1 referred as Nagaya).
Regarding claim 1. Oseki discloses a silicon wafer manufacturing method comprising:
a grinding step of grinding front and back surfaces of a raw wafer to obtain a wafer ([0010], [0021-0022], figure 1, the grinding step (called the rough grinding step) of grinding both the front and back surfaces of the raw wafer to obtain a wafer as described);
a dry-etching step of subjecting the wafer obtained in the grinding step to isotropic whole-surface dry-etching with an etching removal of 1 μm or less per surface to remove a mechanically damaged layer introduced into each of front and back surfaces of the wafer in the grinding step ([0033], [0024-0028], [claim 1], figure 1, a dry etching step (called the dry etching step) to the wafer is complete which includes an isotropic whole surface dry etching (as described in [0027] of using plasma gas) by removing 1 μm is set on the front and back side of the wafer); and
a single-side polishing step of, after the dry-etching step ([0029-0030], [claim 3], then a single-side polishing step (called the fine griding step) is complete after the dry etching step as described).
Oseki lacks a wafer having arithmetic surface roughness Sa per 2 um2 of 10 nm or less; and a double-side polishing step of, after the dry-etching step, polishing both surfaces of the wafer with a stock removal of 3 pm or less per surface.
Nagaya discloses a double-side polishing step of, after the dry-etching step (step S32 does the double-side polishing steps after the dry etching step of S21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki to a double-side polishing step of, after the dry-etching step as taught by Nahaya in order to increase manufacturing speed, offer greater workable surface area for wafers, and to reduce total weight of device.
Oseki as modified by Nagaya still lacks wherein the grinding step of a wafer having arithmetic surface roughness Sa per 2 um2 of 10 nm or less; and wherein the double-side polishing step includes a stock removal of 3 pm or less per surface.
Oseki further discloses very small grinding in the very low micrometer range, more than 0.5 micrometers (The processing margin of dry etching depends on the defect depth generated according to the condition of the double-side grinding step (rough grinding step), but it is sufficient to remove more than 0.5 μm).
MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions - a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki as modified by Nagaya to include a wafer having arithmetic surface roughness Sa per 2 um2 of 10 nm or less in order to provide enhanced device performance, increase the thin film adhesion and to reduce defects in the wafer. Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki as modified by Nagaya to include the polishing step of the wafer having a stock removal of 3 um or less per surface (the polishing step would be remove less or equal to wafer material than the combined rough grinding and dry etching step as seen above just being over 1.5 micrometers ) in order to provide consistent thickness for reliability, allow enhanced precision in manufacturing, and to allow for additional device versatility.
Regarding claim 2. Oseki as modified discloses wherein in the dry-etching step, an etching rate is 0.3 um/min or less ([claim 1], figure 1, the dry etching step has an etching speed of 0.3 um/min or less as described).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oseki et al. (CN-111615741-A referred as Oseki) and Nagaya et al. (WO-2020022391-A1 referred as Nagaya) in further view of Liu et al. (CN-102765695-A referred as Liu).
Regarding claims 3 and 4. Oseki as modified lacks wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a pre-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry- etching.
Liu discloses wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a pre-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry- etching ([claim 1], the dry-etching step of steps 1-3 includes a front and back oxidation treatment seen in step 1 as a pre-treatment for the isotropic whole-surface dry etching seen in step 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki as modified to include a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas performed as a pre-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry- etching as taught by Liu in order to have an improved surface properties, reduce manufacturing costs, and to enhance the devices performance.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oseki et al. (CN-111615741-A referred as Oseki) and Nagaya et al. (WO-2020022391-A1 referred as Nagaya) in further view of Nakayama (CN-105914211-A).
Regarding claims 5 and 6. Oseki as modified lacks wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry-etching.
Nakayama discloses wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry-etching ([page 36 bottom two paragraphs – page 37 top two paragraphs of Machine Translation], during the dry-etching step, the oxidation process of step S14b occurs as a post treatment to the isotropic whole surface dry etching described as step S14a to the wafer (substrate)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki as modified to include a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry- etching as taught by Nakayama in order to have an reduce residues, improved cleaning, and to reduce device failure.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oseki et al. (CN-111615741-A referred as Oseki), Nagaya et al. (WO-2020022391-A1 referred as Nagaya) and Liu et al. (CN-102765695-A referred as Liu) as applied to claim 3 and 4, in further view of Nakayama (CN-105914211-A).
Regarding claims 7 and 8. Oseki as modified lacks wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry-etching.
Nakayama discloses wherein in the dry-etching step, a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas is performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry-etching ([page 36 bottom two paragraphs – page 37 top two paragraphs of Machine Translation], during the dry-etching step, the oxidation process of step S14b occurs as a post treatment to the isotropic whole surface dry etching described as step S14a to the wafer (substrate)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Oseki as modified to include a front-and-back surfaces oxidation treatment with ozone gas performed as a post-treatment of the isotropic whole-surface dry- etching as taught by Nakayama in order to have an reduce residues, improved cleaning, and to reduce device failure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Satake et al. (US-20170194560-A1) and Guo (US-20160133832-A1) for the grinding step, double side polishing, and the meeting certain metrics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R MARIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272 - 2266. 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. 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.
/JACOB RAUL MARIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818