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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations of "to cause bonding of the hydroxy group to the oxime group by "oxygen bonding" constitutes new matter, not supported by the originally filed specification. As acknowledged by applicant and by paragraph 223 of US2024/0418443, the "hydroxy group and the oxime group attract each other by "hydrogen bonding". Claim 1 recites oxygen bonding, and therefore, the limitations constitute new matter not supported by the originally filed specification.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 is indefinite because it states that the water repellent adhering to the substrate is not removed and further states an "an unreacted portion of the water repellent is removed". The claim is indefinite because the limitations of "the water repellent adhering to the substrate is not removed" limits the claim such that no portion of the water repellent adhering to the substrate is removed", and therefore applicant cannot further claim that a portion of the water repellent is removed".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otsuji et al. (US2020/0411309).
Re claim 1, Otsuji et al. teach forming a hydroxy group on the surface of the wafer (paragraph 35, chemical cleaning step, step s3 of Fig. 6), supplying a dry auxiliary liquid containing a sublimable organic compound comprising an oxime group (step S6-1 of Fig. 6, paragraphs 38, 58-62, 88), forming a solidified film (step S6-5 of Fig. 6, paragraph 89) and sublimating the solidified film (step S6-6 of Fig. 6, paragraph 91). Re claim 1, the limitations of "to cause bonding of the hydroxy group to the oxime group" are a result of performing the steps of forming a hydroxy group, and supplying a drying auxiliary liquid containing a sublimable substance containing an organic compound having an oxime group, the limitations of which are taught by Otsuji et al. In summary, since Otsuji et al. teach forming a hydroxy group and a sublimable organic compound comprising an oxime group, the limitation of bonding between the hydroxy and the oxime group are met. Re claim 5, refer to the DIW rinsing, step S4 of Fig. 6. Re claim 6, refer to step S5 of Fig. 6, wherein the first replacement liquid is the IPA replacement. Re claims 8-9, refer to paragraph 58.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuji et al. (US2020/0411309A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (EP3249682A1).
Re claim 2, paragraph 35 of Otsuji et al. teach the cleaning step comprising a chemical containing ammonia and a hydroxyl group, but fail to teach ammonium hydrogen peroxide. Paragraph 138 of Sasaki et al. teach cleaning a wafer by supplying a washing liquid including SC-1 (ammonium/hydrogen peroxide solution) followed by DI water rinsing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Otsuji et al. to include conventional cleaning solutions, such as SC-1, as taught by Sasaki et al., for purposes of performing the same function of cleaning the substrate surface. Re claim 7, Otsuji et al. teach in paragraph 89 blowing a nitrogen gas to form a solidified film. Otsuji et al. fail to teach the substrate being cooled while forming a solidified film. Paragraph 155, page 17 of Sasaki et al. teaches blowing nitrogen on the wafer surface to solidifying the dry assistant liquid by cooling the surface. In view of the teachings of Sasaki et al., the skilled artisan would reasonably expect blowing of nitrogen to the wafer surface to cool the surface, thereby resulting in the formation of a solidified film.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuji et al. (US2020/0411309A1) in view of Chang et al. (US6589356B1).
Otsuji et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed as paragraph 5 of Otsuji et al. teach it is conventional during the manufacturing process of a semiconductor device to form a pattern, following by an etching step, and a cleaning and rinsing process. However, Otsuji et al. fail to teach etching with an etching liquid to remove an oxide film. It is noted that Otsuji et al. teach etching, followed by a cleaning step, and therefore based on Fig. 6 of Otsuji et al., etching would occur before forming the hydroxyl group (i.e. cleaning step) on the substrate surface. Applicant is directed to Fig. 2 of Chang et al. which teaches using SC-1 (ammonium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide mixture, col.2, lines 45-50, col. 6, lines 40-45) to remove silicon oxide film from the wafer surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Otsuji et al. to include an etching liquid, as taught by Chang et al., for purposes of removing silicon oxide film from the wafer surface. Re claim 4, applicant is directed to Fig. 2 of Chang et al. which teaches a rinse (QDR) following SC-1 treatment.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15-16, 18-19, and 23-25 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuji et al. (US2020/0411309A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (EP3249682A1) and further in view of Oishi et al. (US2016/0300710A1).
It appears that claim 10 has been modified to include the limitations of claim 17.
Re claim 10, the limitations are similar to that of claim 1, with the exception of adhering a water repellent to the surface of the substrate. Otsuji et al. teach the limitations of a dry auxiliary liquid and the formation of a solidified film, but fail to teach adhering a water repellent to the substrate surface. Sasaki et al. teach in Fig. 12, a water repellent step (s-17) after the IPA rinsing and before the dry assistant liquid step (s-13). Paragraph 201 of Sasaki et al. teach a water repellent agent for use as a protective film on the surface of a pattern. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Otsuji et al., to include a water repellent agent, as taught by Sasaki et al., for purposes of performing a protective film on the pattern present on the wafer surface.
Otsuji et al. in view of Sasaki et al. teach a replacement liquid (IPA) prior to the step of adhering the water repellent, but fails to teach a replacement liquid after the water repellent step and before the step of supplying the dry auxiliary liquid to the substrate surface. Oishi et al. teach in Fig. 5 an IPA step before and after the water repellency step (steps S106-108), wherein the water repellency suppresses pattern collapse (paragraphs 4, 70, 107) and the IPA serves as a rinsing step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the modified method of Otsuji et al., to include a replacement liquid, such as IPA, after the water repellent step, as taught by Oishi et al., for purposes of replacing water repellent agent remaining on the substrate surface.
Re claim 11, applicant is directed to paragraphs 200-203 of Sasaki et al. Re claim 12, applicant is directed to Fig. 12 of Sasaki et al. Which teaches a washing step (paragraph 138; S-11) of forming a hydroxy group (from chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide water) on the surface before the water repellent step (S-17) . Re claim 15, refer to paragraph 138 of Sasaki et al. which teaches a DIW rinse following the washing step. Re claim 16, refer to step S-12 (IPA rinsing step), Fig. 12 of Sasaki et al. as the replacement liquid. Re claims 18-19, refer to paragraph 58 of Otsuji et al. Re claim 23, in view of the indefiniteness, refer to paragraph 211 of Sasaki et al. which teaches that a process liquid is added to the substrate after the water repellent state, wherein the process liquid is supplied to the surface onto which the water repellent adheres. Re claim 24, refer to Fig. 12, wherein the first and second replacement liquids are IPA. Re claim 25, refer to paragraph 138 of Sasaki et al. which teaches that the rinsing liquid is not limited, and therefore it would be well within the level of the skilled artisan to use rinsing liquids which are the same or different and which include DIW and IPA.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuji et al. (US2020/0411309A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (EP3249682A1), and Oishi et al. (US2016/0300710A1),
and further in view of Chang et al. (US6589356B1).
Otsuji et al., as modified by Sasaki et al. and Oishi et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed as paragraph 5 of Otsuji et al. teach it is conventional during the manufacturing process of a semiconductor device to form a pattern, following by an etching step, and a cleaning and rinsing process. However, Otsuji et al., as modified by Sasaki et al. and Oishi et al. fail to teach etching with an etching liquid to remove an oxide film. It is noted that Otsuji et al. teach etching, followed by a cleaning step, and therefore based on Fig. 6 of Otsuji et al., etching would occur before forming the hydroxyl group (i.e. cleaning step) on the substrate surface. Applicant is directed to Fig. 2 of Chang et al. which teaches using SC-1 (ammonium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide mixture, col.2, lines 45-50, col. 6, lines 40-45) to remove silicon oxide film from the wafer surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the modified method of Otsuji et al. to include an etching liquid, as taught by Chang et al., for purposes of removing silicon oxide film from the wafer surface. Re claim 14, applicant is directed to Fig. 2 of Chang et al. which teaches a rinse (QDR) following SC-1 treatment.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims under 112, second paragraph is maintained for the reasons set forth above.
The rejection of the claims as being anticipated by Otsuji et al. is maintained for the reasons set forth above. Applicant argues that the prior art of Otsuji et al. fail to teach the newly amended limitations. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above. The limitations of "oxygen bonding" constitutes new matter. However, the examiner is interpreting the newly amended limitations as a result of performing the recited steps. Re claim 1, the limitations of "to cause bonding of the hydroxy group to the oxime group" are a result of performing the steps of forming a hydroxy group, and supplying a drying auxiliary liquid containing a sublimable substance containing an organic compound having an oxime group, the limitations of which are taught by Otsuji et al. In summary, since Otsuji et al. teach forming a hydroxy group and a sublimable organic compound comprising an oxime group, the limitation of bonding between the hydroxy and the oxime group are met.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Sasaki and/or Chang fail to teach features B. The secondary reference of Sasaki is relied upon to teach conventional cleaning solutions, solidifying the dry assistant liquid, and a water repellent agent. The prior art of Chang is relied upon to teach using an etching liquid to remove an oxide film. The features of B, are taught by Otsuji et al. (Fig. 6 for example) for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant argues that the skilled artisan would not combine the teachings of Otsuji and Sasaki as different sublimable substances are taught. Applicant's arguments are not persuasive as the rejection is not based on the modification of the sublimable substance. Specifically, the secondary reference of Sasaki et al. is directed to the conventional cleaning solutions and water repellent agents.
Re claim 10, applicant argues that the combination of references fail to teach the newly amended limitations. Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive as claim 10 now incorporates claim 17, which was previously rejected in paragraph 14 of the last Office Action, as being unpatentable over Otsuji et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Oishi et al. It is noted that Chang was not relied in the last office action to reject claims 10 and/or 17.
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 Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
bsc
Prosecution Insights