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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication 2015/0357197 to Peethala in view of US Publication 2018/0269076 to Nanba et al. US Publication 2019/0096730 to Morita et al. and US Publication 2019/0091736 to Okutani et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Peethala et al. teaches a substrate processing method (Figure 4), comprising: holding a substrate on which a boron-containing silicon film is formed (Figure 1); supplying an oxidative aqueous solution including hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid (HNA) to the held substrate peripheral portion (Paragraph 28); and etching the boron-containing silicon film of the substrate with the oxidative aqueous solution while rotating the substrate (Paragraph 21).
Regarding Claim 1, Peethala et al. teaches applying the chemical solution through a spray nozzle or other solution outlet port wherein other solution spraying or applying mechanism may be used as well (Paragraph 21), but does not expressly teach wherein in the supplying of the oxidative aqueous solution, the oxidative aqueous solution is supplied by an upper nozzle toward a front surface of a peripheral portion of
the substrate, and the oxidative aqueous solution is supplied by a lower nozzle toward a rear surface of a peripheral portion of the substrate. However, Nanba et al. teaches supplying an oxidative aqueous solution including hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid (HNA) to a horizontally held and rotated substrate wherein in the supplying of the oxidative aqueous solution, the oxidative aqueous solution is supplied by an upper nozzle toward a front surface of a peripheral portion of the substrate, and the oxidative aqueous solution is supplied by a lower nozzle toward a rear surface of a peripheral portion of the substrate (See Figure 6, and related discussion) in order to etch a peripheral area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the etching method of Peethla et al. with the nozzle arrangement of Nanba et al. in order to etch the peripheral area of a substrate with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1, Peethla in view on Nanba et al. does not expressly teach supplying an oxidative aqueous solution to a peripheral portion of a substrate to etch the peripheral portion first, and then supplying the oxidative aqueous solution to an entire rear surface of the substrate to etch the rear surface. However, Morita et al. teaches supplying an oxidative aqueous solution to a peripheral portion of a horizontally rotated substrate (Fig. 3) to etch the peripheral portion first (Paragraphs 50, 55-63), and then (See Fig 17, 20 and 21 for process flow) supplying the oxidative aqueous solution to an entire rear surface of the horizontally rotated substrate (Fig. 4) to etch the rear surface (Paragraphs 68-77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the etching method of Peethla et al. in view of Nanba et al. with the sequential processing steps of Morita et al. in order to etch peripheral and rear surfaces of a horizontally rotated substrate with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 1, Peethla in view on Nanba et al. and Morita et al. does not expressly teach etching the peripheral portion while rotating the substrate in a range from 400 rpm to 1000 rpm and etching the entire rear surface while rotating the substrate in a range from 200 rpm to 1000 rpm. However, Okutani et al. teaches processing liquid is applied to a horizontally rotating substrate at a speed of 800 rpm to 1000 rpm (See Paragraphs 218 and 236 and Fig 5A and 5F). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide the etching method of Peethla et al. in view of Nanba et al. and Morita et al. with the rotation speed of Okutani et al. in order to etch peripheral and rear surfaces of a horizontally rotating substrate using a chemical liquid with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Peethala et al. teaches (Paragraph 27) a mixing ratio between the hydrofluoric acid and the nitric acid in the oxidative aqueous solution is in a range from 1:1 to 1:10, with higher and lower amounts fully contemplated (Paragraph 28)
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, Peethala et al. teaches the oxidative aqueous solution further includes acetic acid.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0357197 to Peethala et al. in view of US Publication 2018/0269076 to Nanba et al., US Publication 2019/0096730 to Morita et al. US Publication 2019/0091736 to Okutani et al. and JP 11-195637 to Hasegawa et al.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, as applied above to Claim 1, Peethala et al. in view of Nanba et al. Morita et al. and Okutani et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a temperature of the oxidative aqueous solution is in a range from 20°C to 80°C. However, the usable temperature range for silicon etching using acid mixtures is well known in the Prior Art. For example, Hasegawa et al. teaches etching silicon with HNA at a temperature of 20-80°C (Paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a temperature of the oxidative aqueous solution of Peethala et al. in view of Nanba et al. Morita et al. and Okutani et al. in a range from 40°C to 80°C in order to provide effective etching rates with predictable results.
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 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 Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights