DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that McKay fails to disclose a MacEtch process that translates and/or rotates the processing head within the one or more features while the substrate surface is exposed to the etch solution to laterally etch one or more horizontal holes, trenches or circular disks within the one or more features etched within the semiconductor substrate, as recited in currently amended claim 1. However, the argument is not persuasive because McKay teaches (Paragraphs 22 and 23) a MacEtch process that translates and/or rotates the processing head within the one or more features while the substrate surface is exposed to the etch solution to laterally etch one or more horizontal holes, trenches or circular disks within the one or more features etched within the semiconductor substrate, as recited in currently amended claim.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Applicant has not indicated where in the originally filed disclosure support is provided for the subject matter of Claim 10, as combined with the amended limitations of Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/030806 to McKay et al.
Regarding Claim 1, McKay et al. teaches (Paragraphs 6-11) a method for
processing a semiconductor substrate (Paragraph 7), the method comprising: receiving the semiconductor substrate within a wet processing system, the wet processing system comprising a processing head (probe) having one or more metal surfaces at a distal end of the processing head (probe comprising metal);
exposing a substrate surface of the semiconductor substrate to an etch solution comprising an oxidant and an etchant (Paragraph 11) while the semiconductor
substrate is disposed within the wet processing system
moving at least one of the processing head and the semiconductor substrate to
position the one or more metal surfaces of the processing head in close proximity to the
substrate surface while the substrate surface is exposed to the etch solution;
performing a metal assisted chemical etching (MacEtch) process (Paragraph 9)
on the substrate surface and/or within the semiconductor substrate while the one or
more metal surfaces of the processing head is positioned in close proximity to the
substrate surface (Fig 1-10) and the substrate surface is exposed to the etch solution to etch one or more features within the substrate and translating and/or rotating the processing head within the one or more features while the substrate surface is exposed to the same etch solution to laterally etch (Paragraphs 22 and 23) one or more holes trenches or circular disks within the one or more features, wherein during the MacEtch process, the one or more metal surfaces of the processing head catalyze a reduction of the oxidant and generate free electron holes (implicit), which are injected into portions of the substrate surface directly underlying the one or more metal surfaces to form ionic species that are dissolved by the etchant; and moving at least one of the processing head and the semiconductor substrate (Paragraph 15) to remove the one or more metal surfaces of the processing head from the substrate surface upon completion of the MacEtch process.
Regarding Claim 2, McKay et al. teaches (Paragraphs 9) the one or more metal
surfaces of the processing head comprise a noble metal.
Regarding Claim 3, McKay et al. teaches (Paragraphs 9) the oxidant comprises
hydrogen peroxide (H202), nitric acid (HNO3), potassium persulfate (K2S20s), oxygen (02) dissolved in water (H2O) or ozonated water.
Regarding Claim 4, McKay et al. teaches (Paragraphs 9) the etchant comprises
hydrofluoric acid (HF), sulfuric acid (H2SO4) or potassium hydroxide (KOH).
Regarding Claim 5, McKay et al. teaches (Paragraphs 6-11) performing the MacEtch process comprises etching one or more features within the semiconductor substrate while the one or more metal surfaces of the processing head is positioned in close proximity to the substrate surface and the substrate surface is exposed to the etch solution.
Regarding Claim 6-7, McKay et al. teaches (Fig 2-9) performing the MacEtch process comprises etching one or more vertical holes or trenches within the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding Claim 7, McKay et al. teaches (Fig 2-5 and 9b) performing the MacEtch process comprises etching one or more angled holes or trenches within the
semiconductor substrate.
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 8, 9, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/030806 to McKay et al. in view of US Publication 2013/0143407 to Lin et al.
Regarding Claims 8 and 26, as applied above, McKay et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, including various implementations such as a flexible probe, different shape probe (Paragraph 10) holes and trenches (Paragraph 19) moving the probe laterally perpendicular to a sidewall and changing probe angle during etching (Paragraphs 13, 22 and 23) including continuing to advance the probe deeper in the horizontal trench to increase the depth, but does not expressly teach horizontal holes or a circular disk in a vertical trench. However, Lin et al. teaches horizontal holes in a circular pattern in a vertical trench by MacEtch process (Fig 2F) for silicon micro/nanostructures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide vertical trenches having horizontally etched holes or disks in the method of McKay et al. for forming a desired microstructure with predictable results.
Regarding Claims 9 and 27, as applied above, McKay et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a circular disk in a vertical trench. However, Lin et al. teaches horizontal holes in a circular pattern in a vertical trench by MacEtch process (Fig 2F) for silicon micro/nanostructures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide vertical trenches having horizontally etched holes or disks in the method of McKay et al. for forming a desired microstructure with predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 26 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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