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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. US 2019/0071623 (US’623).
Regarding claim 1, US’623 teaches a processing solution (a treatment liquid for a semiconductor device, abstract), comprising:
(A) a compound capable of releasing a fluoride ion (a fluorine-containing compound, as the fluorine-containing compound, those that are dissociated in the treatment liquid to discharge fluoride ions are preferable, abstract, para. 121-132, see table 1);
(B) at least one selected from the group consisting of an ion of an alkaline earth metal (the treatment liquid contains calcium, calcium may be in any form of an ion, para. 97-101 and 133-143, see table 1); and
(C) an organic solvent (the treatment liquid contains an organic solvent, para. 25 and 198-223, see table 1).
Regarding claim 3, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches (D) an anticorrosive agent (the treatment liquid includes a corrosion inhibitor, the corrosion inhibitor may be referred to as an anticorrosion agent, abstract, para. 150-189, see table 1).
Regarding claim 4, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches (E) water (it is preferable that the treatment liquid contains water, para. 224-231, see table 1 water content is the remaining balance of the solutions of examples 1-40).
Regarding claim 5, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 3. US’623 further teaches as the anticorrosive agent (D): a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound or a salt thereof (the corrosion inhibitor include heterocyclic nitrogen inhibitors, para. 152, 5-methyl-1H-benzotriazole (5-MBTA), is the corrosion inhibitor in examples 1-24 of table 1, which is a nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compound).
Regarding claim 6, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 4. US’623 further teaches as the organic solvent (C):at least one selected from the group consisting of an alcohol-based solvent, a sulfoxide-based solvent, a sulfone-based solvent, an amide-based solvent, a nitrile-based solvent, a ketone-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, (examples of the organic solvent include an alcohol-based solvent, a ketone-based solvent, an ester-based solvent, an ether-based solvent, a sulfone-based solvent, a sulfoxide-based solvent, a nitrile-based solvent, and an amide-based solvent, para. 201, table 1 examples 1-31 includes EGBA organic solvent (ethylene glycol butyl ether acetate) which is a glycol ester-based solvent).
Regarding claim 7, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches wherein a content of the organic solvent (C) is from 0.1 to 99.999% by mass (the content of the organic solvent is not particularly limited, and may be any one of 1% to 99.999% by mass with respect to the total mass of the treatment liquid, para. 222, which is within applicants claimed range of from 0.1 to 99.999% by mass, the examples of table 1 include 20% content organic solvent examples).
Regarding claim 8, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches wherein a pH of the processing solution is from 2 to 6 (examples 1-17 of table 1 include a fluorine source, calcium ion source, an organic solvent and the pH is 2.5, para. 532, table 1).
Regarding claim 9, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches wherein the processing solution is a processing solution for a semiconductor substrate, the semiconductor substrate comprises a substrate and a film formed on the substrate, and the film comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a silicon atom, a titanium atom, a cobalt atom, and an aluminum atom (A laminate 10 shown in FIG. 1 comprises a metal layer 2, an etching stop layer 3, an interlayer insulating film 4, and a metal hard mask 5 in this order on a substrate 1, and has holes 6 formed by a dry etching step, through which the metal layer 2 is exposed at predetermined positions. That is, the washing target shown in FIG. 1 is a laminate comprising the substrate 1, the metal layer 2, the etching stop layer 3, the interlayer insulating film 4, and the metal hard mask 5 in this order, and comprising the holes 6 passing through the surface of the metal hard mask 5 at aperture positions thereof to the surfaces of the metal layer 2, para. 357. The layers 2, 3, 4, and 5 can include silicon, titanium and aluminum, para. 357-371. It is noted that the applicant recitation of what the processing solution is for recited the intended use of the composition. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have known that the structural limitations of the composition taught by the prior art and composition claimed would have been the same and since the claim is directed towards a composition, the composition is independent of the intended use).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. US 2019/0071623 (US’623).
Regarding claim 2, US’623 teaches the processing solution of claim 1. US’623 further teaches the content of the fluorine-containing compound is not particularly limited, but is preferably 0.001% by mass or more, the upper limit thereof is preferably 10% (para. 127). The mass content ratio (the content of the calcium (B)/the content of the fluorine-containing compound (A), hereinafter also referred to as “B/A”) of calcium to the fluorine-containing compound in the treatment liquid according to the embodiment is 1.0×10−10 to 1.0×10−4 (para. 145). The value of the calcium content based on the recited B/A ratio of 1.0×10−4 and content of the fluorine-containing compound at 10% is 0.001% which is within applicants claimed range. The value of the calcium content based on the recited B/A ratio of 1.0×10−4 and content of the fluorine-containing compound at 5% is 0.0005% which is within applicants claimed range. Therefore, US’623 teaches the operating rage of the calcium content in the solution which overlaps the claimed range of a concentration of the component (B) is from 0.0005 to 0.5% by mass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select applicants claimed range of a concentration of the component (B) is from 0.0005 to 0.5% by mass because US’623 teaches overlapping ranges for the concentration of component (B), and in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. US 2019/0071623 (US’623).
Regarding claim 10, US’623 teaches a method for processing a semiconductor substrate, the semiconductor substrate comprising a protective film (A laminate 10 shown in FIG. 1 comprises a metal layer 2, an etching stop layer 3, an interlayer insulating film 4, and a metal hard mask 5 in this order on a substrate 1, and has holes 6 formed by a dry etching step, through which the metal layer 2 is exposed at predetermined positions. The substrate includes a semiconductor substrate, para. 356-358), the method comprising:
a step for removing an impurity from the semiconductor substrate by bringing the processing solution according to claim 1 into contact with the protective film (The method for washing a substrate according to an embodiment of the present invention has a washing step B in which a predetermined substrate is washed using the treatment liquid. FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic cross-sectional view showing an example of a laminate which is a washing target in the method for washing a substrate. The method for washing a substrate can be suitably used in a washing intended to remove the dry etching residues 12. That is, the performance for removing the dry etching residues 12 (residue removing capability) is excellent. para. 346-358, US’623 teaches that the treatment liquid is a processing solution recited in claim 1, as discussed above).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamimura et al. US 2019/0071623 (US’623).
Regarding claim 11, US’623 teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor (“substrate” as mentioned herein includes, for example, a semiconductor substrate including a single layer, and examples thereof include a semiconductor substrate including multiple layers, para. 372-375, see fig. 1), comprising:
a step for preparing a semiconductor substrate comprising a substrate and a protective film provided on the substrate (metal hard mask 5 is formed on the insulating layer 4 para. 352-357),
a step for performing etching using the protective film (holes formed toward the substrate from the surface (apertures) of the metal hard mask so as to expose the surface of the metal layer through a dry etching step or the like, para. 352-357), and
a step for removing an impurity from the semiconductor substrate by bringing the processing solution according to claim 1 into contact with the semiconductor substrate after the etching (The method for washing a substrate according to an embodiment of the present invention has a washing step B in which a predetermined substrate is washed using the treatment liquid. FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic cross-sectional view showing an example of a laminate which is a washing target in the method for washing a substrate. The method for washing a substrate can be suitably used in a washing intended to remove the dry etching residues 12. That is, the performance for removing the dry etching residues 12 (residue removing capability) is excellent. para. 346-358, US’623 teaches that the treatment liquid is a processing solution recited in claim 1, as discussed above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN FLANAGAN BERGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
