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 filed 8/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the applied prior art Rioult et al fail to disclose “etching titanium dioxide selectively in the presence of aluminium oxide by contacting the titanium dioxide and the aluminium oxide with an etchant”.
In response, examiner states that the argument is not persuasive because Rioult et al teach after the first etching, exposed metal layer (aluminum) is transformed to aluminium oxide by anodic oxidation of the aluminum film, and now titanium oxide (3) and the aluminum oxide is present on the substrate surface (shown in Figure 2); and By means of the same solution of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia according to the invention, the remainder of the titanium oxide layer 3 is eliminated (col.3, lines 30-col.4, line 5). Therefore, aforesaid teaching reads on the claimed limitation of “etching titanium oxide (titanium dioxide) selectively in the presence of aluminum oxide by contacting the titanium oxide and the aluminum oxide with an etchant”.
Applicants also argue that Rioult et al do not disclose photoetching aluminum oxide, let alone photoetching the surface of aluminum layer 2. In response, examiner states that such argument is not commensurate with the claim.
Remarks: The newly added claim 29, depends on claim 19 (withdrawn claim), so the claim 29 should have been labeled as”Withdrawn-new”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rioult et al (US 4,322,264).
Rioult et al disclose a process of selectively etching titanium dioxide (3) in the presence of aluminium oxide (7) using an etchant, wherein the etchant comprises an aqueous solution of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide (col.2, lines 5-11; col.3, lines 5-col.4, lines 10; Figures 1-3).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8-10,12,16,18, 21-23,27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioult et al (US 4,322,264) as applied for the claim 1 above.
Rioult et al disclose above for the claim 1 and also disclose that the etching solution of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia is used according to the method of the invention, that is, for example, 50 cm.sup.3 of a solution of 30 weight % of H.sub.2 O.sub.2 in water and 10 cm.sup.3 of a solution of NH.sub.3 in water with a density=0.9 (col.3, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 3, Rioult et al disclose the base is ammonia (col.2, lines 12-18) and it is expected that the pK b value falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 4-6, and 23, Rioult et al disclose that the etching solution of hydrogen peroxide and ammonia is used according to the method of the invention, that is, for example, 50 cm.sup.3 of a solution of 30 weight % of H.sub.2 O.sub.2 in water and 10 cm.sup.3 of a solution of NH.sub.3 in water with a density=0.9 (col.3, lines 23-28); and advantageously, the ratio of the volume of ammonia with respect to the volume of hydrogen peroxide to form the solution according to the invention is equivalent to that obtained by adding to one unit volume of 30 weight % hydrogen peroxide in water a quantity of a solution of ammonia in water of specific weight 0.90 of which the volume is between 10 and 50% of the said unit volume (col.2, lines 23-30).
Rioult et al may not explicitly disclose the exact content of the claimed ranges. However, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 8, Rioult et al disclose that a layer 3 of titanium oxide TiO.sub.2 is deposited on said layer 2 (aluminium) by known means (col.3, lines 8-12), wherein the aluminium is anodically oxidized and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that titanium oxide is formed by similar technique as done for the aluminium to form aluminium oxide (col.3, lines 1-7).
Regarding claims 9-10, Rioult et al disclose that a metallic layer of aluminum is disposed over a surface of a semiconductor material 1, which can be oxidized anodically and in which it is desired, for example, to form porous oxide islands (Figures 1-3; col.2, lines 67-col 3, line 7) and therefore, such aluminium oxide or alumina protects the semiconductor component from the etchant during etching; and titanium dioxide (3) is arranged on the aluminium oxide as required in claim 10.
Regarding claims 12 and 16-18, Rioult et al disclose above that the etching solution is an aqueous solution consisting essentially of an aqueous mixture of a 30% aqueous solution by weight of hydrogen peroxide and from 10 to 50% by volume of a unit of volume of said hydrogen peroxide solution of an aqueous solution of ammonia of a specific weight of 0.90 for a time sufficient for said solution to dissolve said selected portions of said titanium dioxide film (claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention mixing ammonia and hydrogen peroxide in water in order to prepare the etching solution. Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 21-22, Rioult et al disclose above that the semiconductor device is formed according to claim 1 and the device comprises a hybrid component having aluminium component layer 2 on a surface of a semiconductor material 1 an a layer of titanium dioxide (TiO.sub.2) (3) is disposed over the aluminium oxide (see Figure 1-3).
Regarding claim 27, Rioult et al disclose above that that the etching solution comprises base as ammonia (col.2, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 30, Rioult et al disclose a process of selectively etching titanium dioxide (3) in the presence of aluminium oxide (7) using an etchant, wherein the etchant comprises an aqueous solution of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide (col.2, lines 5-11); and aforesaid titanium oxide encompasses the claimed etching titanium.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioult et al (US 4,322,264) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PIZZETTI et al (US 2019/0127858).
Regarding claim 7, Rioult et al disclose above for the claim 1 but remain silent regarding the etching being performed at a temperature less than or equal to 30 degree C.
However, in the same field of endeavor, PIZZETTI et al disclose a solution for effective etching titanium- based substrate, likely titanium oxide [0005]; and the etching solution is heated and contacted with the microelectronic device at a temperature comprised between about 15 and about 60° C., preferably between about 20° C. and about 50° C. [0024]; which overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 30 degree C; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 17, PIZZETTI et al disclose that advantageously said solution has a pH comprised between about 7 and about 8 [0010]; and such pH of about 8 is very much close enough that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ PIZZETTI et al's teaching of the etching parameters, such as temperature and pH of an etching solution into the teaching of Rioult et al for effective etching the titanium oxide, which suitable and advantageous as taught by PIZZETTI et al.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioult et al (US 4,322,264) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moriyama et al (US 2008/0308833).
Regarding claim 24, Rioult et al disclose above for claim 1 and also disclose that the titanium oxide film (3) formed over a layer of aluminum layer (2) and the surface 7 (anodized aluminum oxide layer) is appears to be situated between a layer of titanium oxide and the aluminum layer (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, Rioult et al disclose that prior to etching the titanium oxide, patterning the titanium oxide layer (3) using photoetching through a mask pattern (4) (col.3. lines 12-16) but fail to teach the patterning is done by lift-off.
However, Moriyama et al teach during etching of titanium oxide film can be etched advantageously using lift-off technique [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Moriyama et al's teaching of etching titanium oxide using lift-off technique into the teaching of Rioult et al for the benefit suggested by Moriyama et al {0034]. Additionally, it would have bee a simple substitution of known technique during patterning a film.
Regarding claim 26, Rioult et al disclose a layer 3 of titanium oxide TiO.sub.2 is deposited on said layer 2 by known means (col.3, lines 8-10) but may not teach the deposition could be by evaporation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any known technique, such as evaporation as Rioult et al disclose that the deposition of such could be performed any known means.
Claim(s) 11 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rioult et al (US 4,322,264) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 2001/0006936) and Weidman et al (US 2010/0055822).
Rioult et al disclose for the claim 1 but fail to teach performing a cleaning step after the etching.
However, it is typically known in the art that cleaning step is generally obviously performed in order to stop etching or neutralizing the substrate surface after etching step; and in order to remove or clean residuals from the etched surface.
Additionally, Lee et al disclose that the cleaning compositions of the present invention are also effective in removing organometallic and metal oxide residue generated on the substrate of etching equipment utilized in the fabrication of integrated circuits [0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Lee et al's teaching of cleaning step after etching process into the teaching of Rioult et al for achieving a cleaner surface that is beneficial in the industries as suggested by Lee et al.
In the above modified teaching may not explicitly teach the cleaning is performed by acid solution of hydrogen fluoride.
However, Weidman et al disclose a substrate cleaning process using hydrogen fluoride (HF) and such cleaning is suitable and cost effective [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Weidman et al's teaching of cleaning with acid solution of HF into the teaching of modified Rioult et al for cost-effective tools as suggested by Weidman et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsubara (US 5,877,085) discloses a process, wherein an oxygen-containing titanium layer 111 is removed with an etching solution containing an ammonia solution and a hydrogen peroxide solution (col.7, lines 52-55).
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 SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713