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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al (JP-2016-127065 A (provided with IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi et al disclose a composition used in an etching method for producing a semiconductor substrate [0001], wherein the composition used to etch or treat metal layer comprising various metals including tungsten (W) [0010]; and the etching solution comprises an oxidizing agent and an organic solvent [0020]; and the concentration of the organic solvent is 99% by mass or less [0030].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11,13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZUTANI et al (TW 202136477) in view of JP 2005-217360 (herein after, JP-360).
Regarding claim 1, MIZUTANI et al a processing method for a processed object, which includes: step A of performing oxidation treatment on the processed object with a metal layer to form a metal oxide layer; and contacting the processed object obtained in step A with a processing liquid, In the step B of dissolving and removing the metal oxide layer, in the processing method of the object to be processed, the processing liquid contains an organic solvent and an acidic compound, and the content of the organic solvent is 50% by mass or more relative to the total mass of the processing liquid (see page 2 at the translation), wherein the metal layer comprises tungsten (W), molybdenum, etc. (see page 12).
MIZUTANI et al disclose that above-mentioned step A is a step of performing an oxidation treatment in which an oxidizing solution is brought into contact with a to-be-processed object having a metal layer, and oxidizing solution (resemble as the claimed “first treatment liquid”) is selected from the group consisting of a mixed aqueous solution containing water, hydrogen peroxide water (reads on the claimed oxidizing agent) (see page 3); and treatment liquid (resemble as the claimed “second treatment liquid”) contains organic solvent and acidic compound (pages 3, 4); and this treatment liquid may contain water. The water is not particularly limited, and examples thereof include distilled water, ion-exchanged water, and pure water (see page 7); and aforesaid treatment liquid contain water, easily reads on the claimed second treatment liquid contains water.
Unlike the instant invention, MIZUTANI et al fail to disclose the first treatment liquid also contains “an organic solvent” in the step A (claimed step 1).
However, JP-360 discloses a metal-polishing liquid comprising an organic solvent in an amount of 0.1 to 95% by weight and an oxidizing agent (see page 4 and 6 in the machine translation). JP-360 discloses that the basic mechanism is to oxidize the surface of a metal film with an oxidizing agent and scrape the oxidized layer (see page 2). JP-360 discloses that the metal to be polished may comprise tungsten (see page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ JP-360's teaching of using metal-polishing by using an metal oxide on the metal surface utilizing an organic solvent, along with oxidizing agent into the teaching of MIZUTANI et al for effectively removing metal oxide from a metal surface with high flatness and high reliability as suggested by JP-360 (see page 5).
Regarding claims 2 and 5- 6, JP-360 discloses above that the organic solvent is present in an amount of 0.1 to 95% by weight (page 2); and comprises ethyl acetate, ethyl lactate, diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, etc. (page 7).
Regarding claims 3-4, and 14-15, the modified teaching above may not disclose the organic solvent’s relative permittivity. However, JP-360’s organic solvent are the same solvent used in the instant invention and expected to have the same property, namely the claimed relative permittivity.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18-19, MIZUTANI et al disclose oxidizing solution comprises hydrogen peroxide water being used in an amount of 0.5 to 31 mass % (page 13-14) and therefore, one of ordinary skill int l heart would easily optimize such as the water content would have been with in the claimed range unless applicants show any criticality of such water content.
Regarding claims 9-10, MIZUTANI et al disclose the oxidizing agent comprises quinone compound, such as 1,4-Benzoquinone, Toluoquinone, Dimethyl-1,4-Benzoquinone, etc. (page 14).
Regarding claim 11, MIZUTANI et al disclose that the method for processing an object as described, which repeatedly implements the above step A and the above step B (page 3).
Regarding claim 13, MIZUTANI et al disclose that the above-mentioned process steps are performed in the manufacturing method of the semiconductor device (page 18).
Regarding claims 16-17, JP-360 discloses that the organic solvent comprises an ether solvent and may also comprise ethyl acetate, ethyl lactate, diethylene glycol dibutyl ether, etc. (page 7).
Regarding claim 20, MIZUTANI et al disclose the oxidizing agent comprises quinone compound, such as 1,4-Benzoquinone, Toluoquinone, Dimethyl-1,4-Benzoquinone, etc. (page 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2022/179680 discloses a process for etching molybdenum, comprising the steps of: a) oxidizing a thickness portion of the molybdenum using a thermal oxidation process to form molybdenum oxide layer and b) dissolving the thermal molybdenum oxide layer using wet chemistry (see, at least abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
