DETAILED ACTION
1Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). It is noted that applicants amended claim 7 to recite “The substrate method according to claim 1”. Therefore, claim 7 belongs to group I and will be examined in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauerhaas (US 2014/0206195 A1) in view of Arima (US 2022/0068646 A1) and further in view of Hernadi et al. (“Reactivity of different kinds of carbon during oxidative purification of catalytically prepared carbon nanotubes”, Solid State Ionics 141-142; page 203-209, Year: 2001).
Note:
As to claim 1, Lauerhaas discloses a substrate processing comprising:
an ozone gas supplies to
a sulfuric acid-ozone etching step of etching the amorphous carbon film by supplying, after the ozone gas is supplied to the amorphous carbon film, the amorphous carbon film with ozone-containing sulfuric acid that is sulfuric acid in which ozone gas as dissolved gas is dissolved (paragraph 0009-0013, 0036-0065).
As to claim 1, Lauerhaas fails to disclose an ozone gas etching step of etching an amorphous carbon film while heating the substrate. However, Lauerhaas clearly teaches to expose the amorphous carbon to oxidizing agent such as ozone while heating the substrate before sulfuric acid-ozone etching step (See paragraph 0062). Arima discloses an ozone dry etch prior to etching using sulfuric acid with oxidizing of a carbon-containing material (abstract, Fig 8A-8B, paragraph 0008-0030, 0059-0083). Hernadi teaches an ozone gas etching step of etching amorphous carbon while heating amorphous carbon (abstract, pages 202-209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lauerhaas in view of Arima and Hernadi by performing disclose an ozone gas etching step of etching an amorphous carbon film while heating the substrate because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 2, Lauerhaas discloses wherein the sulfuric acid-ozone etching step includes a step of supplying the ozone-containing sulfuric acid to the amorphous carbon film while heating the substrate (paragraph 0009-0013, 0036-0065).
As to claim 3, Lauerhaas discloses the sulfuric acid-ozone etching step includes a step of etching the oxide film of the amorphous carbon film by supplying the ozone-containing sulfuric acid to the amorphous carbon film. Lauerhaas fails to disclose the ozone gas etching step includes a step of forming an oxide film of the amorphous carbon film in a surface layer of the amorphous carbon film by oxidizing a surface of the amorphous carbon film which has been exposed by etching of the amorphous carbon film. Hernadi discloses the ozone gas etching step includes a step of forming an oxide film of the amorphous carbon film in a surface layer of the amorphous carbon film by oxidizing a surface of the amorphous carbon film which has been exposed by etching (i.e. removal) of the amorphous carbon film (pages 202-209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lauerhaas in view of Arima and Hernadi by having the ozone gas etching step includes a step of forming an oxide film of the amorphous carbon film in a surface layer of the amorphous carbon film by oxidizing a surface of the amorphous carbon film which has been exposed by etching of the amorphous carbon film because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
As to claim 4, Lauerhaas discloses the process steps or treatment cycle are repeated a plurality of time (paragraph 0076, 0086).
As to claim 5, Lauerhaas discloses wherein the sulfuric acid-ozone etching step includes a step of forming a liquid film of the ozone-containing sulfuric acid covering the entire front surface of the substrate, by discharging sulfuric acid toward the front surface of the substrate in a state in which the substrate is held horizontally with the front surface of the substrate facing upward, and an accommodating space in which the substrate is placed is filled with ozone gas (See Fig 3A-3B, paragraph 0043-0048).
As to claim 6, Lauerhaas discloses wherein the sulfuric acid-ozone etching step includes a step of causing the ozone-containing sulfuric acid to remain on the front surface of the substrate while maintaining a state in which the entire front surface of the substrate is covered with the liquid film of the ozone-containing sulfuric acid (See Fig 3A-3B, paragraph 0043-0048).
As to claim 7, as discussed above the combination of Lauerhaas, Arima and Hernadi discloses the method of claim 1. Lauerhaas further discloses the substrate processing method is performed by a substrate processing apparatus, the substrate apparatus comprising:
a heater that heats a substrate having an amorphous carbon film formed on a front surface of the substrate (paragraph 0044-0045);,
an ozone gas supply port
a nozzle that etches the amorphous carbon film by supplying, after the ozone gas is supplied to the amorphous carbon film, the amorphous carbon film formed on the front surface of the substrate with ozone-containing sulfuric acid that is sulfuric acid in which ozone gas as dissolved gas is dissolved (paragraph 0043-0070, Fig 3A-3B).
As to claim 7, Lauerhaas fails to disclose an ozone gas supply port that etches the amorphous carbon film while the front surface of the substrate is dry by supplying ozone gas as etching gas to the amorphous carbon film formed on the front surface of the substrate. Lauerhaas clearly discloses an ozone supply port supplies ozone to the amorphous carbon film (paraph 0062, 0070). Hernadi discloses ozone gas supply port that etches the amorphous carbon film while the front surface of the substrate is dry by supplying ozone gas as etching gas to the amorphous carbon film the substrate (page 203-209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lauerhaas, Arima in view of Hernadi by having an ozone gas supply port that etches the amorphous carbon film while the front surface of the substrate is dry by supplying ozone gas as etching gas to the amorphous carbon film formed on the front surface of the substrate because equivalent and substitution of one for the other would produce an expected result (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH X TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1469. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
BINH X. TRAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/BINH X TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights