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 .
This Office action is in response to Amendments filed on 3/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-14 and 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musselwhite et al. (US 2023/0207328 A1) in view of Danek et al. (US 2016/0293398 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Musselwhite discloses a method of selective etching material from a first surface of a substrate relative to a second surface of the substrate, the method comprising:
providing a substrate (entirety of Fig. 3A) into a reaction chamber (¶ 0004); and
selectively etching the first surface (see transition to Fig. 3C).
Musselwhite does not disclose providing an etch priming reactant comprising a halogenated hydrocarbon to be combined with a plasma generated reactive species as claimed.
Danek discloses providing an etch-priming reactant (combination of “237” and “227”, Fig. 2B) in vapor phase (¶ 0071); and
providing reactive species generated from plasma (¶ 0008) for selectively etching material;
wherein the etch-priming reactant comprises a halogenated hydrocarbon (see Fig. 2B).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known particular method of action for the selective etching of Musselwhite for that of Danek and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
In the method of the combination, the selective etching process is a self-limiting process (the selective etching process is considered self-limiting as the reaction is limited by the amount of precursor material present).
Regarding claim 2, Danek further discloses wherein the selective etching process is a cyclic etching process (¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 4, Danek further discloses wherein the etch-priming reactant and the reactive species are provided into the reaction chamber alternately and sequentially (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Danek further discloses purging the chamber after providing the etch-priming reactant (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the first surface comprises oxygen (“silicon oxide”, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 7, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the first surface comprises an oxide (“silicon oxide”, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 8, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the second surface comprises nitrogen (“silicon nitride”, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 9, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the second surface comprises a nitride (“silicon nitride”, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 10, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the second surface comprises nitrogen and hydrogen (“polyimide”, ¶ 0037)
Regarding claim 11, Musselwhite further discloses wherein the second surface comprises a nitride (“silicon nitride”, ¶ 0037).
Regarding claim 12, Danek further discloses discloses wherein the etch-priming reactant comprises a head group and a tail group (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 13, Danek further discloses wherein the head group contains a third-row semimetal or non-metal (Si, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 14, Danek further discloses wherein the third-row semimetal or non-metal is silicon (Si, Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 16, Danek further discloses wherein the head group comprises an amine group (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 17, Danek further discloses wherein the head group comprises a halogen atom (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 18, Danek further discloses wherein the halogen atom is attached to a third-row non-metal or semimetal (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 19, Danek further discloses wherein the head group comprises a halosilane (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 20, Danek further discloses wherein the etch-priming reactant comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon (¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 21, Danek further discloses wherein the halogenated hydrocarbon is a fluorinated hydrocarbon (¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 22, Danek further discloses wherein the etch-priming reactant forms a self-assembled monolayer on the first surface (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 23, Musselwhite discloses a method of selective etching material from a first surface of a substrate relative to a second surface of the substrate, the method comprising:
providing a substrate (entirety of Fig. 3A) into a reaction chamber (¶ 0004); and
selectively etching the first surface (see transition to Fig. 3C).
Musselwhite does not disclose forming an etch-priming layer on the surface using a halosilane compound comprising an aromatic hydrocarbon.
Danek discloses providing an etch-priming layer formed by a halosilane compound comprising an aromatic hydrocarbon (¶ 0044).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have substituted the known particular method of action for the selective etching of Musselwhite for that of Danek and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. (see MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
In the method of the combination, the selective etching process is a self-limiting process (the selective etching process is considered self-limiting as the reaction is limited by the amount of precursor material present).
Regarding claim 24, Danek further discloses wherein the aromatic portion of the hydrocarbon can be halogenated (¶ 0043).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that interpreting the selective etching process to be “a self-limiting process” if the corresponding reaction is limited by the amount of precursor material present “is not consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘self-limiting’ as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art”. This argument is not persuasive as it is a conclusory statement not supported by evidence in the record. A limit is something that bounds, restrains, or confines. The amount of etching which can occur is, therefore, limited by the amount of material present. As such, it is self-limiting.
Applicant further argues that “it is unclear what the Office [a]ction means by ‘combination of 237 and 227’”. This argument is not persuasive as the Rejection indicated that it the components as they appear in Fig. 2B of Danek (“Danek discloses providing an etch-priming reactant (combination of “237” and “227”, Fig. 2B)”, this statement appears in the rejection of claim 1 above and is verbatim to the statement in the rejection of claim 1 in the prior Office action). As such, the reactant is not a single compound but the combination of compounds 237 and 227 in Fig. 2B of Danek (i.e., the reactant is both compound 237 and compound 227).
Applicant further argues that “Danek does not ‘provid[e]’ either of disilicon hexafluoride 227 or silicon nitride 237.” Applicant’s support for this argument is that disilicon hexafluoride 227 and silicon nitride 237 are formed from precursors of compounds 211, 221, and 231. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant has not presented any evidence or rationale from which to conclude that compounds cannot be “provided” by means of a precursor.
Applicant next states that the etch-priming reactant “must be nitrogen trifluoride 243” which does not satisfy the claim limitations concerning head and tail groups. This argument is not persuasive as 243 is not the etch-priming reactant identified in the rejections.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant further argues that ¶ 0053 of Danek does not disclose an aromatic hydrocarbon because the compounds in ¶ 0053 contain nitrogen and “a hydrocarbon does not contain nitrogen”. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant did not claim that the reactant consists of an aromatic hydrocarbon. ¶ 0053 of Danek discloses benzylamine and benzyl is an aromatic hydrocarbon. As such, while the reactant may also include nitrogen, it still comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant further argues that “[a]s discussed above, silicon nitride 237 is not ‘provid[ed]’ as required of the etch-priming reactant by claim 1.” This argument is not persuasive as Applicant has not presented any evidence or rationale from which to conclude that compounds cannot be “provided” by means of a precursor.
Applicant further argues that 237 does not form a monolayer because “only a partial layer of silicon nitride is deposited”. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant did not claim that the monolayer cover the entirety of the first surface.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/C.A.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights