DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Citation Note
In this office action, when the examiner cites applicant’s specification, the examiner is citing paragraph numbers from applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2026/0040869).
Election-of-Species
Applicant’s election of Species A, C, F, G, J, A2, A2a, and J1 in the reply filed on March 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-12, 14, 16, 17, and 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.
Claim 1 recites “at or near room temperature” in lines 3-4 of claim 1. The term “near” in this phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, applicant recites the phrase “at or near room temperature (e.g., about 19-23° C)” in paragraphs [0009] and [0035]. However, this phrasing in in the specification is not clarifying. The Latin phrase “e.g.” means “for example”, and thus it is not clear if the “about 19-23° C” is intended to be the full boundary of the phrase “at or near room temperature” or if “about 19-23° C” is merely an example of temperatures “at or near room temperature”. Additionally, room temperature is often expressed as a range (such as “20-22 °C”), and thus it is not clear if the parenthetical phrase “(e.g., about 19-23° C)” is merely used to modify the phrase “room temperature” or if that parenthetical phrase is meant to modify the entire phrase “at or near room temperature”.
The term “hot” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 1 might ask themselves: how am I supposed to know if my vapor is hot or not? Is there some numerical threshold temperature value (such as 40 °C) that delineates whether a vapor is hot or not.
Claim 1 recites “the temperature of the at least one processing liquid” in lines 11-12, but this phrase creates confusion. In lines 3-4 of claim 1, applicant recites “providing the at least one processing liquid at a temperature at or near room temperature”. However, in lines 7-8 of claim 1, applicant recites “supplying a hot vapor…to increase the temperature of the at least one processing liquid above room temperature”. Thus, when applicant recites “the temperature of the at least one processing liquid” (in lines 11-12 of claim 1), it is not clear what temperature is being referenced: the “a temperature at or near room temperature” of lines 3-4 or a temperature due to the increasing of temperature discussed in lines 7-8.
Claim 10 recites “at or near room temperature” in lines 3-4 of claim 10. The term “near” in this phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the specification, applicant recites the phrase “at or near room temperature (e.g., about 19-23° C)” in paragraphs [0009] and [0035]. However, this phrasing in in the specification is not clarifying. The Latin phrase “e.g.” means “for example”, and thus it is not clear if the “about 19-23° C” is intended to be the full boundary of the phrase “at or near room temperature” or if “about 19-23° C” is merely an example of temperatures “at or near room temperature”. Additionally, room temperature is often expressed as a range (such as “20-22 °C”), and thus it is not clear if the parenthetical phrase “(e.g., about 19-23° C)” is merely used to modify the phrase “room temperature” or if that parenthetical phrase is meant to modify the entire phrase “at or near room temperature”.
Claim 10 recites “near a location at which the at least one processing liquid is dispensed” in lines 9-10. The term “near” in this phrase is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 10 might ask themselves: “how am I supposed to know if my temperature adjustment is occurring near that location or not? Does my temperature adjustment need to happen within six centimeters of that location? Or within twenty centimeters of that location?”
The term “cold” in claims 14, 16, 17, and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 14 might ask themselves: how am I supposed to know if my slurry is can be considered a cold slurry or not? Is any slurry below room temperature considered a cold slurry? Or does some numerical threshold temperature value (such as 10 °C) delineate whether a slurry can be considered cold or not?”
The term “hot” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, someone reading claim 20 might ask themselves: how am I supposed to know if my vapor is hot or not? Is there some numerical threshold temperature value (such as 40 °C) that delineates whether a vapor is hot or not.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0247505 by Brown in view of U.S. 2021/0046602 by Wu.
With regard to claim 1, Brown teaches a method for adjusting a temperature of a phosphoric acid solution used to etch a semiconductor substrate, wherein the method comprises heating and dispensing (via supply line 682 in Figure 6B) the phosphoric acid solution onto the substrate (item 654 in Figure 6B), and wherein the method comprises supplying steam (via supply line 670 in Figure 6B; reads on hot vapor) to the substrate to increase the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution to a temperature above room temperature after an amount of the phosphoric acid solution has been supplied to the substrate (Par. 0040-0042, 0044, and 0067).
Brown does not explicitly teach a step of adjusting the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution by adjusting a flow rate of the supplied steam. However, Brown does recite that “a flow rate and pressure of the steam water vapor mixture can be used as variables for controlling a temperature of the treatment liquid [which is the phosphoric acid solution], which affects the boiling point temperature of the treatment liquid, and further resulting in a concentration of phosphoric acid in the treatment liquid. The equilibrium phosphoric acid concentration and temperature of the treatment liquid affects the etch rate and etch selectivity” (Par. 0041). Brown is silent about whether or not this flow rate control involves adjusting the steam flow rate occurs during the wet process.
Wu teaches that, when dispensing steam in order to optimize a temperature of a surface, a feedback control system can successfully allow that optimization to occur during a process, wherein the feedback control system comprises a temperature sensor that monitors the surface temperature such that the flow rate of dispensed steam can be adjusted to correct for the temperature deviating from the optimal value (Par. 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brown by using a feedback control system to optimize the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution on the substrate during processing of the substrate, wherein the feedback control system uses a temperature sensor to sense the temperature on the substrate surface and adjusts the flow rate of the steam (during the etching of the substrate) in response to the sensed temperature. Brown does recite that “a flow rate and pressure of the steam water vapor mixture can be used as variables for controlling a temperature of the treatment liquid [which is the phosphoric acid solution], which affects the boiling point temperature of the treatment liquid, and further resulting in a concentration of phosphoric acid in the treatment liquid. The equilibrium phosphoric acid concentration and temperature of the treatment liquid affects the etch rate and etch selectivity” (Par. 0041). The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wu, who teaches that, when dispensing steam in order to optimize a temperature of a surface, a feedback control system can successfully allow that optimization to occur during a process, wherein the feedback control system comprises a temperature sensor that monitors the surface temperature such that the flow rate of dispensed steam can be adjusted to correct for the temperature deviating from the optimal value.
The combination of Brown in view of Wu does not ever recite that the phosphoric acid solution is initially provided at or near room temperature.
However, in the art of providing heated liquid to a semiconductor substrate, it is well known that a liquid can successfully be heated by first providing the liquid at or near room temperature and then heating the liquid via a heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brown in view of Wu by first providing the phosphoric acid solution at or near room temperature and subsequently heating (via a heater) the phosphoric acid solution to the dispensing temperature of the phosphoric acid solution. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of providing heated liquid to a semiconductor substrate, it is well known that a liquid can successfully be heated by first providing the liquid at or near room temperature and then heating the liquid via a heater. In this combination of Brown in view of Wu, the temperature of the steam is above the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution at or near room temperature.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Brown in view of Wu, the flow rate of the heating steam is increased in order to raise the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution on the substrate.
With regard to claim 4, when discussing the embodiment of Brown’s Figure 6B, the combination of Brown in view of Wu does not explicitly teach that the water steam is produced via boiling. However, in the art of semiconductor manufacturing, it is well known that water steam can successfully be produced via boiling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brown in view of Wu by producing the water steam via boiling. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of semiconductor manufacturing, it is well known that water steam can successfully be produced via boiling.
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Brown in view of Wu does not explicitly teach that the steam has a temperature of at least 100 °C. However, Brown is considered to teach that the steam temperature is a result-effective variable because Brown teaches that steam heat is used to control the temperature of the phosphoric acid solution in order to control the etch rate and etch selectively of the phosphoric acid solution (Par. 0041). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Brown in view of Wu such that the temperature of the steam is optimized, as Brown is considered to teach that the steam temperature is a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 8, in the combination of Brown in view of Wu, the water used to generate the steam is a different chemical than the phosphoric acid etching solution.
With regard to claim 9, in the combination of Brown in view of Wu, the phosphoric acid solution is an etching solution
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0030576 by Hanawa.
With regard to claim 10, Hanawa teaches a method of adjusting a temperature of at least one process liquid used to process a semiconductor substrate (item “W” in Figures 1, 10, and 11), wherein the method comprises providing a process liquid (Par. 0156), dispensing the process liquid onto a surface of the substrate (Par. 0156 and 0157), and adjusting a temperature of the process liquid during the wet process, wherein the temperature of the process liquid is adjusted near a location at which the process liquid is dispensed onto the surface of the substrate (Par. 0158-0169; Figures 1 and 9-11). The adjusting of the temperature comprises using heated N2 gas (supplied via pipe 83 in Figure 1) to heat the process liquid (during a first time period) to a second temperature that is above a melting point of a component of the process liquid (Par. 0090-0097, 0160, and 0163). The adjusting of the temperature comprises using a cold liquid (supplied via pipe 93 in Figure 1) to decrease a temperature of the process liquid (during a second time period) to a third temperature that is less than the second temperature such that the processing liquid freezes to produce a solid layer (Par. 0098-0103 and 0167-0169).
As discussed, the adjusting of the temperature comprises using heated N2 gas to heat the process liquid a temperature that is above a melting point of a component of the process liquid (Par. 0090-0097, 0160, and 0163). Hanawa doesn’t explicitly specify that this above-melting-point-of-component temperature is above room temperature. However, earlier, when discussing how to ensure that the process liquid is above the melting point of that component and below a boiling point for liquid of the process liquid, Hanawa teaches that the process liquid can be heated in a range of 35 °C to 82 °C (Par. 0158). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanawa such that, during the heating of the process liquid (this being the heating in Par. 0160 and 0163), the process liquid is heated to a temperature in a range of 35 °C to 82 °C. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Hanawa, who teaches that when discussing how to ensure that the process liquid is above the melting point of the processing liquid component and below a boiling point for liquid of the process liquid, a temperature in the range of range of 35 °C to 82 °C can successfully be used.
The developed method of Hanawa teaches that the process liquid is dispensed at a temperature in a range of equal to or more than 35 °C and equal to or less than 82 °C (Par. 0158). Hanawa does not teach a step of providing the process liquid at or near room temperature. However, in the art of providing heated liquid to a semiconductor substrate, it is well known that a liquid can successfully be heated by first providing the liquid at or near room temperature and then heating the liquid via a heater. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanawa by first providing the process liquid at or near room temperature and subsequently heating (via a heater) the process liquid to within Hanawa’s disclosed dispensing temperature range (of equal to or more than 35 °C and equal to or less than 82 °C). The motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of providing heated liquid to a semiconductor substrate, it is well known that a liquid can successfully be heated by first providing the liquid at or near room temperature and then heating the liquid via a heater.
With regard to claim 11, in the developed method of Hanawa, the adjusting of the temperature of the process liquid comprises initially increasing (via heated N2) the temperature of the process liquid during the first time period and subsequently decreasing (via the cold liquid) the temperature of the process liquid during the second time period (Par. 0090-0103, 0160, 0163, and 0167-169).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0030576 by Hanawa as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of U.S. 2017/0256392 by Maruyama.
With regard to claim 12, Hanawa does not teach that the heating gas supplied to the bottom of the substrate in order to heat the process liquid has a boiling point above the first temperature (at which the process liquid is initially supplied, prior to heating) at or near room temperature. Hanawa teaches that IPA can be used as a solvent of the process liquid (Par. 0111 of Hanawa).
Maruyama teaches that when attempting to heat a substrate by supplying heated gas to a bottom of the substrate, IPA vapor can successfully be used as the heated gas (Par. 0125 and 0126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Hanawa by using IPA vapor as the gas for impacting the bottom surface of the substrate in order to heat the process liquid thereon. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Maruyama, who teaches that when attempting to heat a substrate by supplying heated gas to a bottom of the substrate, IPA vapor can successfully be used as the heated gas. Since Hanawa’s process liquid already contains IPA (Par. 0111 of Hanawa), IPA is not considered to be chemically harmful to components of the process liquid. IPA has a boiling point higher than room temperature.
Discussion of Claims 14, 16, 17, and 20
The examiner does not have prior-art-based rejections for claims 14, 16, 17, and 20. However, since those claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and since the examiner can’t predict how applicant might choose to amend the claims in response to those 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner isn’t yet ready to say that claims 14, 16, 17, and 20 necessarily contain allowable subject matter.
With regard to claim 14, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama used above to reject claim 12. The combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama fails to teach that the decreasing of the temperature of the process liquid comprises supplying a cold slurry to the at least processing liquid to decrease the temperature of the process liquid from the second temperature to the third temperature, wherein a temperature of the cold slurry is less than the second temperature. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama to arrive at the method recited by claim 14.
With regard to claim 16, the most relevant prior art is the combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama used above to reject claim 12. The combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama fails to teach that the decreasing of the temperature of the process liquid comprises supplying a cold slurry to the at least processing liquid to decrease the temperature of the process liquid from the first temperature to the third temperature, wherein the third temperature is less than the first temperature, and wherein a temperature of the cold slurry is less than the first temperature. The reviewed prior art fails to provide motivation to modify the combination of Hanawa in view of Maruyama to arrive at the method recited by claim 16. Claims 17 and 20 depend from claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights