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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 directed to a substrate processing method in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, an apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a miss spelling. You introduce “an alkaline component” then later refer to it as “the alkali component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-2 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2 of co-pending Application No. 18/550235 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Both claims 1 of instant application and claim 1 of 18/550235 require forming an oxide layer and etching the oxide layer with a polymer layer.
The instant application differs from 18/550235 in that the instant application further requires wherein the oxide layer formation and the oxide layer removal are alternately repeated.
This would have been an obvious modification based on the teachings of Iwasaki. Iwasaki teaches wherein the oxide layer formation and the oxide layer removal are alternately repeated (the metal oxide layer forming step and the metal oxide layer removing step are alternately executed a plurality of times, also referred to as digital etching or cycle etching, paragraphs 0117–0118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the oxide layer formation and oxide layer removal in order to achieve a desired etching amount by adjusting the number of repeated executions of the oxide layer formation and oxide layer removal, as taught by Iwasaki.
Claim 2 of the instant application recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 of Application No. 18/550235. In particular, both claim 2 of the instant application and claim 2 of Application No. 18/550235 require the polymer film to additionally contain an alkaline/alkali component, and require starting etching/removal by heating the polymer film and evaporating the alkaline/alkali component from the polymer film after the polymer film is formed.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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, 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 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.
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, 3–6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. (US 2019/0096721 A1) in view of Lennon et al. (US 2012/0196444 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki teaches a substrate processing method of etching a substrate comprising forming an oxide layer by oxidizing a surface layer portion of a major surface of the substrate and forming said oxide layer (forming a metal oxide layer on a surface layer of a metal layer by supplying an oxidizing fluid to the surface of the substrate, paragraph 0006), and removing the oxide layer (selectively removing the metal oxide layer from the surface of the substrate by supplying an etchant to the surface of the substrate, paragraph 0006).
Iwasaki further teaches wherein the oxide layer formation and the oxide layer removal are alternately repeated (the metal oxide layer forming step and the metal oxide layer removing step are alternately executed a plurality of times, also referred to as digital etching or cycle etching, paragraphs 0117–0118).
Iwasaki does not teach that removing the oxide layer includes forming a polymer film that contains an acid polymer on the major surface of the substrate and removing the oxide layer by the acid polymer contained in the polymer film.
Lennon teaches removing the oxide layer by forming a polymer film that contains an acid polymer on the major surface of the substrate and removing the oxide layer by the acid polymer contained in the polymer film (forming a layer of polyacrylic acid, which is an acidic polymer layer, over a silicon dioxide layer by spin-coating and drying a polyacrylic acid solution; the acidic polymer layer provides a source of protons for the etching reaction; and a deposited fluid reacts with the polymer layer to form an etchant that etches the silicon dioxide under the polymer layer, paragraphs 0093 and 0097). The method does not require a masking or resist layer and is safer than existing etching methods in that the corrosive etchant is only formed in-situ on the device surface to be etched. Furthermore, because the etchant is formed only at the locations to be etched, the method requires small amounts of chemicals and produces significantly less hazardous chemical waste. The method does not require any resist chemicals and only uses small quantities of etching precursor materials (para. 94)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the oxide layer removal of Iwasaki to include forming a polymer film that contains an acid polymer on the major surface of the substrate, as taught by Lennon, so that the acid polymer contained in the polymer film provides protons for the oxide-removal etching reaction and participates in forming an etchant at the substrate surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Lennon teaches that forming the etchant in situ on the device surface reduces the amount of corrosive etchant used, reduces hazardous chemical waste, and allows the etchant to be formed at the locations to be etched (Lennon, paragraph 0094). See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 3, modified Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, including the acid-polymer-containing polymer film discussed above.
Modified Iwasaki does not expressly teach that the polymer film additionally contains an electroconductive polymer.
Lennon teaches that the acidic polymer layer may include acidic polythiophene or polyaniline derivatives (paragraph 0097). The instant specification identifies polythiophene and polyaniline as examples of electroconductive polymers (paragraph 0085).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use an acidic polythiophene or polyaniline derivative in the acid-polymer-containing polymer film of modified Iwasaki, as taught by Lennon, because Lennon teaches these polymers as suitable acidic water-soluble polymers for the etching polymer layer. Therefore, the combination of Iwasaki and Lennon teaches or suggests the polymer film additionally containing an electroconductive polymer. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 4, modified Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, wherein the oxide layer formation and the oxide layer removal are alternately repeated (the metal oxide layer forming step and the metal oxide layer removing step are alternately executed a plurality of times, paragraphs 0117–0118).
Modified Iwasaki does not expressly teach a polymer-film removal including removing the polymer film from the major surface of the substrate after the oxide layer removal is completed and before the oxide layer formation subsequent to the oxide layer removal is started.
Lennon teaches removing the polymer film from the major surface of the substrate after the oxide layer removal is completed (after etching is completed, the acidic water-soluble polymer and etching residue are removed from the substrate by rinsing or washing in water, paragraphs 0093 and 0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to remove the polymer film after the oxide layer removal and before the next oxide layer formation in the repeated modified Iwasaki process, as taught by Lennon, in order to remove the spent polymer film and etching residue from the substrate surface before subsequent processing. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 5, modified Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, wherein the oxide layer formation includes wet oxidation by supplying a liquid oxidant to the major surface of the substrate. Iwasaki teaches forming a metal oxide layer by supplying an oxidizing fluid to the surface of the substrate (paragraph 0006), supplying oxidizing fluids such as hydrogen peroxide to the upper surface of the substrate (paragraph 0050), and using oxidizing fluids including hydrogen peroxide water, perchloric acid, nitric acid, a mixed liquid of ammonia water and hydrogen peroxide water, ozone dissolved water, or oxygen dissolved water (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 6, modified Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 5, further comprising supplying a rinsing liquid to wash the major surface of the substrate after the oxide layer formation and before the oxide layer removal. Iwasaki teaches executing an oxidizing fluid supply step, a first rinsing liquid supply step, and an etchant supply step in that order (paragraph 0091). Iwasaki further teaches that the first tube supplies oxidizing fluids, such as hydrogen peroxide, to the upper surface of the substrate and also supplies a first rinsing liquid, such as deionized water, to the upper surface of the substrate (paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 10, modified Iwasaki teaches supplying a liquid to the major surface of the substrate and forming a coating film by evaporating solvent from the liquid. Iwasaki teaches supplying a coating agent to the upper surface of the substrate, wherein the coating agent is a liquid that forms a coating film by evaporating an organic solvent (paragraph 0065). Iwasaki further teaches forming a coating film on the substrate by evaporating the organic solvent in the coating agent on the substrate (paragraph 0112).
Modified Iwasaki does not expressly teach that the liquid is a polymer-containing liquid containing the acid polymer used in the oxide layer removal.
Lennon teaches supplying a polymer-containing liquid that contains at least a solvent and the acid polymer to form the polymer film. Lennon further teaches forming an acidic polymer layer over the substrate surface by spin-coating a 25% solution of polyacrylic acid and then air-drying the layer, wherein the acidic polymer layer provides a source of protons for the etching reaction (paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the acid-polymer-containing solution of Lennon as the coating liquid in modified Iwasaki, such that the polymer film is formed by evaporating at least a portion of the solvent from the polymer-containing liquid on the major surface of the substrate, because Lennon teaches forming the acidic polymer layer used for oxide removal from a polyacrylic acid solution by coating and drying. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 11, modified Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, further comprising supplying a liquid containing a solvent and an oxidant to the major surface of the substrate, wherein the oxide layer formation includes forming the oxide layer by means of the oxidant contained in the liquid supplied to the major surface of the substrate. Iwasaki teaches forming a metal oxide layer by supplying an oxidizing fluid to the surface of the substrate (paragraph 0006). Iwasaki further teaches oxidizing fluids including hydrogen peroxide water, a mixed liquid of ammonia water and hydrogen peroxide water, ozone dissolved water, and oxygen dissolved water (paragraph 0053). Water is a known solvent.
This interpretation is consistent with the instant specification, which identifies DIW and other water-based liquids as suitable solvents for the polymer-containing liquid (paragraph 0083), and with Iwasaki’s similar disclosure of DIW, carbonated water, electrolyzed ionic water, dilute hydrochloric acid water, dilute ammonia water, and reduced water as water-based substrate-processing liquids (paragraph 0061).
Modified Iwasaki does not teach supplying a mixed liquid that contains at least a solvent, the acid polymer, and an oxidant to the major surface of the substrate, wherein the oxide layer removal includes forming the polymer film by evaporating at least a portion of the solvent contained in the mixed liquid on the major surface of the substrate.
Lennon teaches forming the polymer film from a liquid containing the acid polymer. Lennon teaches forming an acidic polymer layer by spin-coating a 25% solution of polyacrylic acid and then air-drying the layer (paragraph 0097). Lennon further teaches that the acidic polymer layer provides a source of protons for the etching reaction (paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Iwasaki to supply a mixed liquid containing the water-containing oxidizing fluid of Iwasaki and the polyacrylic acid solution of Lennon to the major surface of the substrate, such that the mixed liquid contains water as a solvent, the acid polymer, and an oxidant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the oxidant for oxide layer formation and the acid polymer for polymer-film-based oxide layer removal in a single mixed liquid, thereby simplifying delivery of the reactive components to the substrate surface. See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki et al. in view of Lennon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeGendt et al. (US 2002/0011257 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Iwasaki teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, further comprising allowing a spin chuck to hold the substrate (the substrate holding unit includes a spin base and a plurality of chuck pins that hold the substrate horizontally, paragraph 0037).
Iwasaki does not expressly teach that the oxide layer removal includes forming the acid-polymer-containing polymer film on the major surface of the substrate held by the spin chuck.
Lennon teaches forming the acid-polymer-containing polymer film on a substrate surface (forming the acidic polymer layer by spin-coating and drying a polyacrylic acid solution over the substrate surface, paragraph 0097).
Iwasaki in view of Lennon does not expressly teach that the oxide layer formation includes a heating oxidation of forming the oxide layer by heating the substrate held by the spin chuck.
DeGendt teaches the oxide layer formation includes a heating oxidation of forming the oxide layer by heating the substrate (oxide growth on a silicon surface can be executed through the silicon oxidizing activity of a fluid mixture of ozone and water, where the fluid may be liquid, gas, steam, vapor, or a mixture thereof, paragraphs 0035 and 0110; ozone concentration, oxidizing capabilities, cleaning performance, and reaction kinetics are affected by operating temperature, paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the oxide layer removal of Iwasaki to include forming Lennon’s acid-polymer-containing polymer film on the major surface of the substrate held by Iwasaki’s spin chuck because Lennon teaches spin-coating the acidic polymer layer, and Iwasaki teaches holding the substrate with a spin-based substrate holding unit during substrate processing. It further would have been obvious to modify the oxide layer formation of Iwasaki to include heating oxidation by heating the substrate held by the spin chuck, in view of DeGendt, because DeGendt teaches oxide growth using an oxidizing ozone/water fluid and teaches that ozone concentration, oxidizing capabilities, cleaning performance, and reaction kinetics are affected by operating temperature. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki, Lennon and DeGendt teach the substrate processing method according to claim 7, as discussed above.
Iwasaki further teaches heating the substrate using a heater embedded in the spin base (paragraph 0112).
Iwasaki does not teach heating the acid polymer containing polymer film through the substrate by the heater while performing the oxide removal.
Lennon teaches forming the acid polymer containing polymer film on the substrate surface by spin-coating and drying a polyacrylic acid solution, wherein the acidic polymer layer provides a source of protons for the etching reaction (paragraph 0097).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat Lennon’s polymer film through the substrate by Iwasaki’s heater while performing the oxide layer removal because Lennon teaches forming the polymer film on the substrate surface, Iwasaki teaches a heater embedded in the spin base for heating the substrate, and heat from the heater would predictably transfer through the substrate to the polymer film during processing. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki in view of Lennon teaches the substrate processing method according to claim 1, as discussed above.
Iwasaki does not expressly teach that the oxide layer formation includes a dry oxidation of forming the oxide layer by at least any one among light irradiation, heating, and supply of a gaseous oxidant.
DeGendt teaches the oxide layer formation includes a dry oxidation of forming the oxide layer by supply of a gaseous oxidant (oxide growth on a silicon surface can be executed through the silicon oxidizing activity of a fluid mixture of ozone and water, where the fluid may be gas, vapor, steam, or a mixture thereof, paragraphs 0035 and 0110; a wafer is exposed to a moist atmosphere and an O3 gas ambient maintains a continuous high supply of O3 to the wafer surface, paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the oxide layer formation of modified Iwasaki to include forming an oxide layer by supplying a gaseous oxidant, as taught by DeGendt, because ozone was a known oxidizing agent for wafer surface oxidation, and DeGendt teaches oxide growth using ozone/water fluid mixtures including gas-phase or vapor-phase oxidizing processes. See MPEP § 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12–13 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Claims 12–13 would be allowable because the applied prior art, including Iwasaki and Lennon, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the particular arrangements for forming and supplying the mixed liquid recited in claims 12 and 13.
More specifically, claim 12 recites forming a mixed liquid by mixing a liquid oxidant and an acid polymer liquid that contains the acid polymer together in a pipe connected to a mixed liquid nozzle, wherein the mixed liquid is discharged from the mixed liquid nozzle to supply the mixed liquid to the substrate.
Iwasaki teaches supplying an oxidizing fluid, such as hydrogen peroxide water, to the upper surface of the substrate to form a copper oxide layer (paragraph 0098). Lennon teaches forming an acidic polymer layer from a polyacrylic acid solution by coating and drying (paragraph 0097).
However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest mixing a liquid oxidant and an acid polymer liquid together in a pipe connected to a mixed liquid nozzle and discharging the resulting mixed liquid from the mixed liquid nozzle to the substrate, as recited in claim 12.
Claim 13 recites forming a mixed liquid by mixing a liquid oxidant and an acid polymer liquid together in a mixed liquid tank that supplies the mixed liquid to a pipe that guides the mixed liquid to a mixed liquid nozzle, wherein the mixed liquid is discharged from the mixed liquid nozzle to supply the mixed liquid to the substrate. Iwasaki teaches supplying processing liquids through pipes and nozzles (paragraphs 0055–0057, 0066), and separately teaches an etchant tank for supplying etchant to an etchant pipe (paragraphs 0082–0083).
Lennon teaches forming an acidic polymer layer from a polyacrylic acid solution by coating and drying (paragraph 0097). However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest mixing a liquid oxidant and an acid polymer liquid together in a mixed liquid tank that supplies the mixed liquid through a pipe to a mixed liquid nozzle for discharge to the substrate, as recited in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights