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 .
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.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Amendments made to claims 1, 8, and 21, the addition of claims 32-34, and the cancelation of claims 3, 5, 9, 13, 15-20, 22, 25 and 27-28, as filed on June 11, 2026, are acknowledged.
The Applicant’s Statement Regarding Substance of Interview, see Remarks filed on June 11, 2026, makes a conclusive statement of “[t]he Examiner agreed that the proposed amendments, substantially included in this response, overcome the applied references”. However, this statement is not accurate, see the Examiner Interview Summary Record mailed on May 28, 2026 for detailed discussion of the interview. No agreement was achieved during the interview.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed on June 11, 2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “TANAKA does not disclose, teach, or suggest a pH within the claimed range of approximately 10 to approximately 14. However, Tanaka discloses that the chemical etchant is an aqueous alkaline solution (claim 4), indicating that the pH of the solution is greater than 7, which encompasses the range recite din the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
The Applicant argues that “the specification identifies the claimed pH range as achieving a particular technical objective-namely, achieving a sufficiently high etch rate for the grinding-and-etching process while avoiding undesirable manufacturing tradeoffs. The specification further explains that the combination of mechanical grinding and chemical etching increases material-removal rates and reduces surface roughness of the semiconductor substrate”. However, this conclusive statement is not sufficient to demonstrate the criticality of the claimed range. Specifically, there is no objective data neither inside nor outside the range showing criticality of the claimed range. Actually, the specification clearly states that “other values for the range are within the scope of the present disclosure” (paragraph 0035)
The amendments made to claims 8 and 21 have overcome the cited prior art references (see Allowable Subject Matter section below for more details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US20200114488) in view of Sato et al. (“Characterization of orientation-dependent etching properties of single-crystal silicon: effects of KOH concentration”, Sensors and Actuators A, vol. 64, year 1998, pages 87-93).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a method (abstract), comprising: positioning a semiconductor substrate on a platen in a processing chamber of a substrate grinding tool (paragraph 0029 and Fig. 2); and performing, using the substrate grinding tool, a grinding operation to remove material from the semiconductor substrate to reduce a thickness of the semiconductor substrate, wherein a chemical etchant comprising KOH is dispensed onto a surface of the semiconductor substrate during the grinding operation to reduce a surface roughness of the semiconductor substrate, and wherein a temperature of the chemical etchant satisfies a temperature threshold (paragraphs 0033-0035). Tanaka is silent about the concentration of the KOH solution; however, Tanaka discloses that the aqueous KOH solution is used in polishing silicon wafer (paragraphs 0033-0034). In addition, Sato teaches that KOH concentration is a result-effective variable impacting silicon etch profile (section 5, page 92). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the concentration of KOH (a result-effective variable) in the method of Tanaka to achieve desirable etch profile as taught by Sato, with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Tanaka is silent about wherein a pH of the chemical etchant is included in a range of approximately 10 to approximately 14. However, Tanaka discloses that the chemical etchant is an aqueous alkaline solution (claim 4), indicating that the pH of the solution is greater than 7, which encompasses the range recite din the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises a silicon (Si) substrate (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses wherein the chemical etchant is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate after a grinding device of the substrate grinding tool mechanically grinds the surface of the semiconductor substrate during the grinding operation (aqueous alkaline solution used in the second polishing step reads on a chemical etchant, claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses wherein the chemical etchant is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate while a grinding device of the substrate grinding tool mechanically grinds the surface of the semiconductor substrate during the grinding operation (paragraph 0029 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses wherein the semiconductor substrate is rotated on the platen while the chemical etchant is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate to disperse the chemical etchant across the surface of the semiconductor substrate (paragraphs 0029 and 0038, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Tanaka is silent about receiving one or more signals to cause the grinding operation; however, this is an inherent feature of a grinding operation.
Regarding claim 32, Tanaka is silent about during the grinding operation, a flow rate of the chemical etchant is approximately 500 milliliters per minute. However, Tanaka teaches that during the grinding operation, a flow rate of the chemical etchant (polishing agent) is adjusted (paragraph 0038). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-12, 14, 21-24, 26, 30-31 and 33-34 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: performing, using a chemical etchant dispensed onto a surface of the semiconductor substrate in the processing chamber, a second part of the grinding operation after the first part of the grinding operation, wherein the chemical etchant comprises a potassium hydroxide (KOH) diluted in deionized water to approximately 30% of a total volume of the chemical etchant, and wherein the chemical etchant is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate at a temperature that is included in a particular temperature range of approximately 40 degrees Celsius to approximately 100 degrees Celsius such that an etch rate of the chemical etchant, for etching the surface of the semiconductor substrate, satisfies an etch rate threshold, in in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of Shimomura discloses a chemical etchant that does not meet both the KOH concentration (reflected by pH) and the temperature requirements simultaneously (Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 10-12, 14, 30 and 33, they are dependent on claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method wherein the chemical etchant is heated to approximately 70 degrees Celsius and is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate during the mechanical removing for approximately 2 minutes, in in the context of the instant claim. The closest cited prior art of Wang discloses wherein the chemical etchant is dispensed onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate after the mechanical removing (paragraph n0072), not during the mechanical removing as recited in the amended claim 21.
Regarding claims 23-24, 26, 31 and 34, they are dependent on claim 21.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights