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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al. (US-20130181159-A1) in view of Chung et al. (US-20200407636-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsuchiya teaches a silicon-etchant composition (Paragraph [0001] composition for etching. Paragraph [0033] composition can be used in treating a silicon wafer) comprising:
a quaternary alkyl ammonium hydroxide (Paragraph [0031] composition includes a basic compound. Paragraph [0033] basic compound can be a quaternary ammonium hydroxide, with examples of tetramethylammonium and tetraethyl ammonium listed as suitable);
an amine-based compound (Paragraph [0052] composition can include a chelating agent, suitable examples are included contain an amine, such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and triethylenetetramine hexaacetic acid); and
a nonionic surfactant comprising at least two selected from the group consisting of a first nonionic surfactant, a second nonionic surfactant, a third nonionic surfactant (Paragraph [0017] composition include a first and second surfactant. Paragraph [0026] first and second surfactants can be nonionic).
Tsuchiya fails to explicitly teach that the first nonionic surfactant is represented by Chemical Formula 1 where n is 1 to 2, the second nonionic surfactant is represented by Chemical Formula 1 where n is 3 to 5, the third nonionic surfactant is represented by Chemical Formula 1 where n is 6 to 8, and wherein R withing Chemical Formula 1 is a C3 to C18 linear or branched alkyl group, a C3 to C18 cyclic alkyl group, or a C6 to C18 aryl group.
However, Tsuchiya teaches the surfactants are not particularly limited by their structure, and provides examples, such as polyoxyalkylene compounds that can be suitable for use (Paragraphs [0027-0029]). Tsuchiya does teach that the second surfactant has a molecular weight of one-half or less than that of the first surfactant (Paragraph [0017]).
Chung teaches a composition for silicon etching (Paragraph [0001]) that can include a quaternary ammonium hydroxide component (Paragraphs [0024-0026]) and nonionic surfactants (Paragraphs [0047] and [0082]). Chung teaches a formula for the surfactant (see C-1 below) where x can be 1-20, R5 can be a hydrogen atom, and R6 can be C3-C18 alkyl group or a cyclic group (Paragraphs [0054-0059] and [0071]). Chung teaches another formula for the surfactant (see C-1-4 below) where X04 can be 5-20 and m04 + n04 is 7-15 (Paragraphs [0075-0080]).
PNG
media_image1.png
105
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
154
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an embodiment where a surfactant is represented by the formula C-1, x=1, R5 is a hydrogen atom, and R6 is a C3-C18 alkyl group, the resulting surfactant would be equivalent to the claimed “first nonionic surfactant” and would have a molecular weight of 104.1. In an embodiment where a surfactant is represented by the formula C-1, x=3, R5 is a hydrogen atom, and R6 is a C3-C18 alkyl group, the resulting surfactant would be equivalent to the claimed “second nonionic surfactant” and would have a molecular weight of 192.3. In an embodiment where a surfactant is represented by the formula C-1-4 and x04 is 5, the resulting surfactant would be equivalent to the claimed “second nonionic surfactant” and would have a molecular weight 378.5. In an embodiment where a surfactant is represented by the formula C-1-4 and x04 is 8, the resulting surfactant would be equivalent to the claimed “third nonionic surfactant” and would have a molecular weight of 598.9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of Tsuchiya by selecting as the first nonionic surfactant, one of the surfactants taught by Chung and selecting as the second nonionic surfactant, a different surfactant taught by Chung such that the molecular weight of the second surfactant would be half or less than the molecular weight of the first surfactant, and the two surfactants would represent two different groups from the claimed groups consisting of “a first nonionic surfactant”, “a second nonionic surfactant”, and “a third nonionic surfactant”. Such a selection would be possible, as can be seen from the example embodiments of the teachings of Chung outlined above.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of two nonionic surfactants suitable for use in an etching composition with two other nonionic surfactants. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, 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.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. As outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, embodiments of these teachings include the instant limitation “wherein the nonionic surfactant includes the second nonionic surfactant, and further includes at least one of the first nonionic surfactant and the third nonionic surfactant”.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Tsuchiya fails to explicitly teach wherein a content of the nonionic surfactant is in a range from 0.01 wt% to 0.2 wt% based on a total weight of the composition.
However, Tsuchiya further teaches content of the surfactants is 0.00001% to 0.1% by mass (Paragraphs [0018-0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the nonionic surfactant at a level within the disclosed range of 0.00001% to 0.1% by mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.01-0.2% by weight. 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).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. As outlined in claims 1 and 2, embodiments of the teachings can include wherein the nonionic surfactant includes the first nonionic surfactant and the second nonionic surfactant as required by the instant claims.
Modified Tsuchiya fails to explicitly teach wherein the nonionic surfactant includes the first nonionic surfactant and the second nonionic surfactant, and a weight ratio of the first nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant is in a range from 0.1 to 0.2, as required by claim 4, or wherein a weight ratio of the first nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant is in a range from 0.12 to 0.17, as required by claim 5.
However, Tsuchiya teaches a ratio of the total number of carbon atoms of the taught second surfactant to the sum of the total number of carbon atoms of the taught first surfactant and the total number of carbon atoms of the taught second surfactant to be 1-90% (Paragraphs [0021-0022]), and teaches a method for calculating these values (Paragraph [0023]). In an embodiment where the claimed first nonionic surfactant is HO(C2H4)OC3H7 (Formula C-1, taught by Chung where x=1, R5 is a hydrogen atom, and R6 is a C3H7 group), with a total of 5 carbon atoms per molecule and a molecular weight of 104.1, and the claimed second nonionic surfactant is (CH3)2(CH2)7(CH)O(C2H4O)5H (Formula C-1-4 taught by Chung where x04 is 5 and m04+n04 is 7), with a total of 20 carbon atoms and a molecular weight of 378.5, the range of the ratio of the mass of the claimed first nonionic surfactant to the claimed second nonionic surfactant can be calculated to be 0.101 to 89.991.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the two nonionic surfactants at a levels within the composition such that the weight ratio of the first nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant was within the disclosed range of 0.101 to 89.991, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.2, as required by claim 4, or the claimed range of 0.12 to 0.17, as required by claim 5. 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).
Regarding Claim 6 and 7, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above. As outlined in claims 1 and 2, embodiments of the teachings can include wherein the nonionic surfactant includes the second nonionic surfactant and the third nonionic surfactant as required by the instant claims.
Modified Tsuchiya fails to explicitly teach a weight ratio of the third nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant is in a range from 0.08 to 0.17, as required by claim 6, and wherein a weight ratio of the third nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant is in a range from 0.10 to 0.15, as required by claim 7.
However, Tsuchiya teaches a ratio of the total number of carbon atoms of the taught second surfactant to the sum of the total number of carbon atoms of the taught first surfactant and the total number of carbon atoms of the taught second surfactant to be 1-90% (Paragraphs [0021-0022]), and teaches a method for calculating these values (Paragraph [0023]). In an embodiment where the claimed second nonionic surfactant is (C3H7)(OC2H4)3OH (Formula C-1, taught by Chung where x=3, R5 is a hydrogen atom, and R6 is a C3H7 group), with a total of 9 carbon atoms per molecule and a molecular weight of 192.3, and the claimed third nonionic surfactant is (CH3)2(CH2)15(CH)O(C2H4O)8H (Formula C-1-4 taught by Chung where x04 is 8 and m04+n04 is 15), with a total of 34 carbon atoms and a molecular weight of 598.9, the range of the ratio of the mass of the claimed third nonionic surfactant to the claimed second nonionic surfactant can be calculated to be 0.0123 to 10.917.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the two nonionic surfactants at a levels within the composition such that the weight ratio of the third nonionic surfactant to the second nonionic surfactant was within the disclosed range of 0.0123 to 10.917, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.08 to 0.17, as required by claim 6, or the claimed range of 0.10 to 0.15, as required by claim 7. 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).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Tsuchiya further teaches wherein the nonionic surfactant does not include a nonionic surfactant represented by Chemical Formula 1 where n is 8 (As outlined in the rejection of Claim 1 above, embodiments are taught where the "at least two" nonionic surfactants selected are the claimed first nonionic surfactant and the claimed second nonionic surfactant. In any such embodiment, there is no nonionic surfactant represented by Chemical Formula 1 where n=8).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Chung further teaches wherein, in Chemical Formula 1, R is a phenyl group, a naphthyl group, a methylphenyl group or an octylphenyl group (Chung Paragraphs [0056] R5 can be a cyclic group. Paragraph [0059] R5 can be an aromatic or polycyclic group. Chung Paragraph [0064] the group can be a benzene or naphthalene ring).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Tsuchiya teaches that the amount of quaternary alkyl ammonium hydroxide within the composition is not particularly limited (Paragraph [0034]) but fails to teach wherein a content of the quaternary alkyl ammonium hydroxide is in a range from 1 wt% to 20 wt% based on a total weight of the composition.
Chung teaches a composition for silicon etching (Paragraph [0001]) that can include a quaternary ammonium hydroxide component (Paragraphs [0024-0026]) and nonionic surfactants (Paragraphs [0047] and [0082]). Chung further teaches that quaternary ammonium hydroxide component can be include at 0.01-15% by mass (Paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of modified Tsuchiya by including the quaternary ammonium hydroxide component within the composition at the range taught by Chung.
This modification would been obvious as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable amount of a quaternary ammonium hydroxide component to include within an etching composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a quaternary alkyl ammonium hydroxide at a level within the disclosed range of 0.01-15% by mass, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1-20% by weight. 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Chung, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Asirvatham (US-20220017821-A1)
Modified Tsuchiya teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Tsuchiya teaches that the composition includes a chelating agent that can include an amine (Paragraph [0052]), but fails to teach wherein a content of the amine-based compound is in a range from 1 wt% to 30 wt% based on a total weight of the composition.
Asirvatham teaches formulations that can be used in the etching of silicon wafers and substrates (Paragraphs [0031-0032]). Asirvatham teaches that the formulation can include a chelating agent (Paragraph [0036]). Asirvatham teaches that the chelating agent can be included in the composition from 0-10% by weight (Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the composition of modified Tsuchiya by including the chelating agent within the composition at level within the range taught by Asirvatham.
This modification would been obvious as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield a predictable result. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable amount of a chelating agent to include within an etching composition. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the chelating agent at a level within the disclosed range of 0-10% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 1-30% by weight. 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).
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 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713