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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 18, line 8, the term “silicone” should recite - - silicon - -. In claim 18, lines 4, 5, the term “substrate” should recite - - silicon substrate - - . Additionally, claim 18 is missing a period mark. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 10-1354006 B1).
Lee discloses an etching method (abstract) comprising:
forming a single (i.e., the sole) metal catalyst directly on a silicon substrate (“The metal (ex: NiPt) forming the silicide is deposited on the upper portion” page 4, paragraph 9 of English machine translation), the single metal catalyst containing only nickel silicide containing platinum (PtNiSi) is formed by:
stacking nickel and platinum (NiPt) onto the silicon substrate (broadly interpreted, “NiPt” is stacked on the silicon substrate by being deposited on the silicon substrate, page 4, paragraph 9), and
heat treating, after stacking the NiPt onto the silicon substrate, all of the silicon substrate, the nickel, and the platinum to form PtNiSi on the silicon substrate (page 5, last two paragraphs); and
selectively etching (HF and H2O2, page 5), after forming the metal catalyst on the silicon substrate, the silicon substrate in contact with the metal catalyst through chemical etching of the metal catalyst (to form silicon nano line 400, page 5, Fig. 4).
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 10-1354006 B1) in view of Masuzaki et al (JP 2012-069849 A).
In this interpretation of claim 18, the claim element “stacking nickel and platinum” is taken to require depositing a nickel layer and a separate platinum layer, thereby forming stacked layers of Ni and Pt on the silicon substrate.
Lee discloses an etching method (abstract) comprising:
forming a single (i.e., the sole) metal catalyst directly on a silicon substrate (“The metal (ex: NiPt) forming the silicide is deposited on the upper portion” page 4, paragraph 9 of English machine translation), the single metal catalyst containing only nickel silicide containing platinum (PtNiSi) is formed by:
depositing NiPt onto the silicon substrate (page 4, paragraph 9), and
heat treating, after depositing the NiPt onto the silicon substrate, all of the silicon substrate, the nickel, and the platinum to form PtNiSi on the silicon substrate (page 5, last two paragraphs); and
selectively etching (HF and H2O2, page 5), after forming the metal catalyst on the silicon substrate, the silicon substrate in contact with the metal catalyst through chemical etching of the metal catalyst (to form silicon nano line 400, page 5, Fig. 4).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the nickel and platinum layers are stacked on the silicon substrate. In other words, Lee fails to disclose to form a nickel layer and separately form a platinum layer. Lee simply discloses to form a NiPt layer. Masuzaki teaches that a nickel silicide containing platinum may be formed by depositing a platinum layer and a nickel layer on the silicon surface, and then to heat to form a nickel-platinum silicide (PtNiSi) (abstract). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack nickel and platinum as cited, and then to heat as cited, in the method of Lee because Masuzaki teaches that such is a useful method for forming PtNiSi and such is expected to give the predictable result of the desired silicide layer from the stack of layers present.
Response to Amendment
The rejections of claims 1-17 are withdrawn because the claims have been cancelled. New claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (KR 10-1354006 B1). Claim 18 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (KR 10-1354006 B1) in view of Masuzaki et al (JP 2012-069849 A). Masuzaki is newly cited to show the obviousness of stacking two layers to form a silicide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose what is bolded in the claim reproduced on page 4 in the arguments. Applicant fails to particularly point out where the references fail to meet the cited limitations. Lee, as best understood, discloses forming nickel and platinum on a silicon substrate, heating, and then using the resulting nickel silicide that contains platinum to perform metal-assisted chemical etching, as explained in the rejection above. The claim describes to “stack” the layers without explicitly requiring two separate layers. Broadly interpreted, a NiPt layer is a stacked layer on the substrate. However, for completeness, Masuzaki is applied to teach the obviousness of forming separate layers, even though the claim does not yet require this.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawakami et al (US 2025/0105014 A1) is not prior art, but cited for completeness to show formation of two layers of catalyst for metal-assisted chemical etching.
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 ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights