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Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 8, line 5 recites “adding the nanoparticle-water mixture to an acid to from an etchant solution”, creating ambiguity in the claim and therefore rendering the claim indefinite. It appears the line should read “to form an etchant solution”.
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
As to claim 15, line 6 recites “adding the nanoparticle-water mixture to phosphoric acid to form an etchant solution”, creating ambiguity in the claim and therefore rendering the claim indefinite. It appears the line should read “to form an etchant solution”.
Claims 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
Further as to claim 20, the limitation “the desired etch selectivity range is 80:1 or greater” is indefinite because the claim does not identify the materials upon which the etch selectivity range is based, i.e., a ratio of an etch rate of silicon nitride to an etch rate of silicon oxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record to Morris et al. (US 4092211 A) teaches a process of reducing an etch rate of silicon oxide from a wafer, comprising a silicon oxide mask and underlying silicon nitride layer, by adding a silica powder to the phosphoric acid etchant [Abstract; claim 1, claim 4], but fails to disclose a second nanoparticle.
Additionally, Cooper et al. (US 9158203 B2) teaches a method of removing silicon nitride from a microelectronic device using a removal composition including silicic acid formed by adding silica powder to fluorosilicic acid [Abstract; claims 1 and 4], but fails to disclose a second nanoparticle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited reference to Yi et al. (US 20070102023 A1) is cited to show a method of removing silicate particles from a phosphoric acid etchant bath to regenerate the etchant [Abstract]; and to Arndt et al. (US 8298435 B2) is cited to show a method of forming a conditioned etchant comprising adding fresh etchant to a first etchant comprising dissolved silicon nitride and silicon oxide from previously etched wafers [Abstract, claim 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights