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 § 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nelson (US 4466859).
With respect to claim 1, Nelson describes a method for etching copper for printed circuit board or etching a semiconductor substrate comprising: forming a pattern of organic catalysts on regions to be etched on the copper, which can also include photoresist pattern (col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 5; col. 7, line 18-25; tables 1, 2) wherein the catalyst agents promote reaction of the nitrogen dioxide, which is an oxidizing agent, with copper or claimed the catalyst promotes a redox reaction (col 3, line 25-30); providing an etching solution having 8-12% of phosphoric acid or a corrosive agent and nitrogen dioxide or oxidizing agent (col. 3, lines 25-30; col. 4, line 55-60; col. 5, line 15-25, 60-64); removing the solution including the organic polymer catalyst from the copper after the etching process (col. 5, lines 55-59).
With respect to claim 2, the organic polymeric catalysts would be necessary meeting the condition of claim 2 in order to promote the reaction between the nitrogen dioxide and the copper or a redox reaction in the region being etched.
With respect to claim 3, tables 1 and 2 shows organic catalysts which provide a redox organic compound and a redox organic polymer.
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) 6, 7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kramp et al. (US 2016/0027746A1).
With respect to claim 6, Nelson teaches the gaseous oxidants include oxygen (table 4) and liquid oxidant can be employed (col. 5, lines 60-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use dissolved oxygen in the composition. Unlike claimed invention Nelson doesn’t teach the corrosive agent includes one or more of HF, buffered HF, ammonia, sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and citric acid. However, Kramp teaches etching agents including phosphoric acid (also taught by Nelson above) or sulfuric acid is a known etching agent for copper (para 44). Therefore, in the absent of unexpected results, one skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use any known etching agent including either phosphoric acid or sulfuric acid to facilitate the etching process of the copper.
With respect to claim 7, Kramp further teaches the copper is on “a semiconductor substrate may be a silicon-based semiconductor substrate, or silicon carbide-based semiconductor substrate, or gallium arsenide-based semiconductor substrate or gallium nitride-based semiconductor substrate, for example” for an integrated circuit device (para 19, 20). one skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use any of those substrate in order to form an integrated circuit device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2019/0364665A1).
With respect to claim 8, Nelson teaches that a convention photoresist can be employed in the process which would provide a pattern with exposed regions of the copper for applying the organic catalysts and being removed (col. 7, lines 20-25). Unlike claimed invention, Nelson doesn’t describe the steps of forming the photoresist pattern. However, the steps of forming a photoresist pattern, in which the photoresist is being exposed and developed, are a well-known process as shown here by Yang (para 17, 38). Therefore, one skilled in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to apply those steps because they would facilitate in forming photoresist pattern on the copper surface for the etching process with expected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 9-14 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.
Claim 4 is allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson fails to teach the organic catalysts include one or two or more of the redox organic compound selected from the redox organic compound group consisting of 2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidinyloxyl (TEMPO),2,5-di-tert-butyl-1,4-bis(2-methoxyethoxy) benzene (DBBB), N-ethylphenothiazine (EPT), and 3,7-bis(trifluoromethyl)-N-ethylphenothiazine (BCF3EPT), and derivatives thereof, and one or two or more of the redox organic polymer selected from the redox organic polymer group consisting of TEMPO polymer, Poly(2,2,6,6 tetramethylpiperidinyloxy-4-vinylmethacrylate) (PTMA), Poly(3,4 ethylenedioxythiophene)(PEDOT), and Poly(3-vinyl-N-methylphenothiazine) (PVMPT), and derivatives thereof.
Claim 5 is allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson fails to teach the organic catalyst contains a TEMPO derivative that is represented by the following chemical formula: [Chemical Formula 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Claim 9 is allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson, even though teaches using a photoresist pattern; however, he fails to teach arranging the organic catalyst includes applying a photosensitive organic catalyst onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate to form a photosensitive organic catalyst applied film; selectively exposing the photosensitive organic catalyst applied film that is applied on the surface of the semiconductor substrate depending on a position at which the organic catalyst is to be arranged; and developing the exposed photosensitive organic catalyst applied film to obtain a patterned organic catalyst film with the photosensitive organic catalyst film remaining only at the position at which the organic catalyst is to be arranged.
Claim 10 is allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson, even though teaches removing the composition after the etching process; however, Nelson fails to teach removing the organic catalyst includes dissolving the organic catalyst with a solvent, and the solvent contains one or two or more selected from N,Ndimethylformamide (DMF), monoethanolamine (MEA), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), acetonitrile (MeCN), dichloromethane (DCM), 1,2-dimethoxyethane (DME), tetrahydrofuran (THF), propylene glycol monomethyl ether (PGME), propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate (PGMEA), and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).
Claim 11 is allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson, even though teaches removing the composition after the etching process; however, Nelson fails to teach removing the organic catalyst includes 1¥H,'·Shi.H,f-peeling the organic catalyst with a peeling solution, and the peeling solution contains one or more of sulfuric acid/hydrogen peroxide mixture (SPM) and ozone water.
Claim 12-14 are allowed over the applied prior art Nelson because Nelson fails to teach further steps including after removing the organic catalyst, supplying an oxidizing solution onto the surface of the semiconductor substrate to form an oxidized film; and removing the oxidized film with an etching solution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights