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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 101 in Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al. (JP-2021174926-A, machine translation) in view of Hinode et al. (JP-2014157935-A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Nakanishi teaches A substrate processing method to process a substrate having a major surface in which at least one of a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer is exposed as a processing target layer, the substrate processing method (Paragraph [0001] method for processing a substrate. Paragraph [0041] the film to be processed can be a film on the surface of the substrate, and therefor exposed, an can be silicon oxide or silicon nitride) comprising:
an etching liquid supply step of supplying the major surface of the substrate with an etching liquid containing an ammonium fluoride as an etching agent to etch the processing target layer (Paragraph [0085] an etching solution is supplied to the upper surface of the substrate. Paragraph [0023] etching solution can include ammonium fluoride);
a rinse liquid supply step of supplying the major surface of the substrate with a rinse liquid after the heating step (Paragraph [0080] a rinse liquid is supplied to the substrate after the etching process is complete).
Nakanishi fails to teach a heating step of heating the etching liquid on the major surface of the substrate after the etching liquid supply step. However, Nakanishi teaches that the temperature of the etching solution is to be controlled and affects the etching rate (Paragraph [0107]).
Hinode teaches a method of selective etching that can be used in the etching of silicon nitride or silicon oxide (Paragraph [0048]). Hinode teaches that heating can be applied across the entire upper surface of a substrate and that applying uniform heating improves the uniformity of the etching process (Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Nakanishi by including the step of heating the substrate while the etching process was being conducted, as taught by Hinode.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Nakanishi teaches that the temperature of the etching solution affects the etching rate (Nakanishi Paragraph [0107]) and Hinode teaches that by heating the upper surface of the substrate the temperature of the etching process can be made more uniform and therefore the etching process can be more uniform (Hinode Paragraph [0017]). Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have allowed for the heating of the substrate and would have had the predictable result of heating the etching solution and the etching process allowing for a more uniform etching process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Nakanishi teaches further comprising a rotating step of rotating the substrate about a center axis that passes a center portion of the major surface of the substrate after stopping the supply of the etching liquid to the major surface of the substrate in the etching liquid supply step and before the heating step (Paragraph [0065] the rotation of the substrate occurs after the supply of the etching solution stops. Paragraph [0049] the rotation of the substate can occur before the etching process begins, and therefore also before the heating step).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as outlined above.
As outlined above, modified Nakanishi fails to teach wherein the rotating step includes a step of rotating the substrate at a rotational speed of not less than 2000 rpm and not more than 4000 rpm. However, Nakanishi teaches that the rotational speed can be varied and that the rotational speed used can affect the etching rate (Paragraph [0113] film thickness displacement acceleration affects the etching rate).
Hinode further teaches that a rotation speed of 500 to 3000 rpm can be used to cause an etching solution to be removed from the substrate due to the centrifugal force (Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Nakanishi by selecting a rotational speed within the range taught by Hinode. Within the method of modified Nakanishi, removal of some of the etching liquid from the surface of the substrate is one of the goals of rotating the substrate. Hinode teaches a suitable rotational speed that would be able to remove some of the etching liquid with centrifugal force.
This modification of modified Nakanishi would have been obvious because the selection of a rotational speed would be required to perform the method and Hinode teaches a suitable rotational speed. this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of provide a rotational speed that could remove some etching liquid from the surface of the substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, Nakanishi teaches wherein the rotational speed is a result effective variable. Specifically, Nakanishi teaches that the etching rate depends on rotational speed. Since this particular parameter is recognized as result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980). Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the claimed invention to modify rotational speed to yield a desired etching rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a rotational speed at a level within the disclosed range of 500 to 3000 rpm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 2000 to 4000 rpm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Nakanishi fails to teach wherein, in the heating step, the substrate is heated to a temperature of not less than 50°C and not more than 200°C.
However, Hinode further teaches that the substrate can be heated to be over 100°C (Paragraph [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated heating the substrate to a temperature at a level within the disclosed range of over 100°C, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of not less than 50°C and not more than 200°C. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Nakanishi further teaches wherein an etching depth of the processing target layer is proportional to a total amount of the etching agent in the etching liquid existing on the major surface of the substrate at the time of starting the heating step (Paragraphs [0086-0096] Figures 8 and 9 the liquid film thickness of the etching solution has a relationship with the amount of material that is etched, and the amount of material etched can be controlled by adjusting the rpm of the substrate, which would affect the liquid film thickness, and the waiting time allowed before the rinse process starts).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Modified Nakanishi is silent on process whereby the heating step includes a reaction promoting step of promoting a reaction between the etching agent and the processing target layer by removing by heating a solid layer formed on the processing target layer by a reaction between the etching agent in the etching liquid on the major surface of the substrate and the processing target layer. However, given that the method of modified Nakanishi is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the method of modified Nakanishi would inherently have the instantly claimed feature. Specifically, as the method of modified Nakanishi teaches the use of the same etching agent as claimed to etch the same material as claimed and teaches providing heat for this etching process to occur, examiner takes the position that the method of modified Nakanishi intrinsically would include the formation of a solid layer by the reaction between the etching agent and the processing target, and that the heating step would promote a reaction by the removal of that solid layer by heating. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish a nonobviousness difference. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Nakanishi further teaches wherein the substrate further includes a semiconductor layer, and a plurality of structural bodies formed on the semiconductor layer, the plurality of structural bodies being covered by the processing target layer (Paragraph [0017] substrate can be a semiconductor wafer Paragraph [0072] substrate can comprise a film (element Mx) that is covered by the film to be processed (element TG). Paragraph [0091] substrate can include a plurality of multiple films TG that need to be processed. The topmost film of the multiple films TG can be considered the claimed processing target, and the underlying multiple films TG and film Mx can be considered the plurality of structural bodies formed on the substrate (W)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Hinode, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US-20070082497-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Nakanishi fails to teach wherein a mass percent concentration of the etching agent in the etching liquid to be supplied to the major surface of the substrate is not less than 0.2 wt% and less than 10 wt%.
Lee teaches a composition for etching that can be used in the etching of silicon oxide or silicon nitride materials (Paragraph [0033]). Lee teaches that the composition includes 0.1-35% by weight a fluorine-containing compound (Paragraph [0037]). Lee teaches that the fluorine-containing compound can be ammonium fluoride (Paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Nakanishi by including ammonium fluoride within the etching liquid at a level between 0.1-35% by weight as taught by Lee.
This modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a suitable amount of etching agent, specifically ammonium fluoride, within an etching liquid. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated ammonium fluoride within the etching liquid at a level within the disclosed range of 0.1-35% by weight, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of not less than 0.2 wt% and less than 10 wt%. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi in view of Hinode, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US-20210335802-A1, hereafter Lee’802).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Nakanishi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Nakanishi fails to teach wherein the substrate further includes an insulation layer, a channel that is formed by digging a front surface of the insulation layer and in that the processing target layer is embedded, and a covering layer interposed between the processing target layer and a side wall of the channel and covering the side wall of the channel.
Lee’802 teaches methods related to forming devices on substrates (Paragraphs [0003-0006]). Lee’802 teaches forming a hole through layers, including an insulating layer (Paragraph [0031] Figure 3B hole (element 138) is formed and is formed through insulating layers (elements 132 and 136)). Lee’802 teaches that inside the hole, the sidewalls of the hole are covered (Paragraph [0032] Figure 3C channel layer (element 150A) covers sidewalls of hole (element 138)) and then an insulating material that can be silicon oxide or silicon nitride is deposited in the hole (Paragraph [0032] Figure 3C insulating material 152A, which can be silicon oxide or silicon nitride is deposited in the hole (element 138)). Lee’802 teaches that the insulating material is etched (Paragraph [0033] Figure 3D insulating material 152A is etched).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Nakanishi by conducting the method upon a substrate with the design taught by Lee’802 as outlined above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the substrate design and method taught by Lee’802 present a substrate with a silicon oxide or silicon nitride layer that require etching and the method of modified Nakanishi teach a method of etching suitable for etching silicon oxide or silicon nitride layers and teach that the method can be suitable when the substrate includes layers beneath the layer to be etched. Additionally, this modification could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing substrate with a design suitable for conducting the method of modified Nakanishi upon. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights