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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/05/2026. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 21-26, 33, 35, 38-40, 45, 48, 52-58 are pending in the current office action, with claim 57 being withdrawn. Claims 1, 21, 25, 38, 39 has been amended by the applicant. Claims 20, 27, and 37 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The rejection of claims 20, 27, and 37 is obviated by the Applicant’s cancellation.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The claims 1, 38, and 39 recite the term “bifluoride source” and this term can be considered to have the ordinary and customary meaning of a material that comprises bifluoride (HF2-) and therefore could be a source of bifluoride. However, applicant’s specification Paragraph [0092] recites that “A bifluoride source is a material that includes or produces bifluoride (HF2-).” and proceeds to list as examples of a bifluoride source: ammonium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, buffered oxide etch mixture, hydrogen fluoride pyridine. Therefore, the claims 1, 38, and 39 will be examined under the interpretation of the term “bifluoride source” referring to “a material that includes or produces bifluoride (HF2-)” and that at least ammonium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, buffered oxide etch mixture, and hydrogen fluoride pyridine are all considered a “bifluoride source”.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, 38, 45, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda et al (US-20150380268-A1) in view of Fischer et al (WO-2019226341-A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Toda teaches a method for etching a substrate (Paragraph [0044]), the method comprising:
a. providing the substrate in a reaction chamber, the substrate comprising a target material that is to be partially or wholly removed from the substrate during etching (Paragraph [0045] a wafer is loading into a chamber, the wafer comprising an SiO2 film that is an etching target);
b. providing a gas mixture in the reaction chamber and exposing the substrate to the gas mixture, wherein the gas mixture is vapor phase and comprises (Paragraph [0047] a gas mixture is introduced to the chamber):
i. a halogen source (Paragraph [0047] F2 can be considered a halogen source),
ii. an organic solvent and/or water (Paragraph [0047] alcohol can be considered an organic solvent. Paragraph [0039] water may be used instead of alcohol),
iii. an additive (Paragraph [0047] HF can be considered an additive), and
iv. a carrier gas (Paragraph [0047] N2 can be considered a carrier gas); and
c. providing thermal energy to the reaction chamber to drive a reaction that partially or wholly etches the target material from the substrate, wherein the substrate is not exposed to plasma during etching (Paragraph [0048] the temperature within the chamber is set within a predetermined range thereby etching the SiO2 film. Paragraph [0061] etching is conducted without generating plasma within the chamber).
wherein the additive is selected from the group consisting of a heterocycle, an amine, an amino acid, an organophosphorous compound, an oxidizer, a bifluoride source, an aldehyde, a carbene, and an organic acid (Paragraph [0047] HF can be included and considered the additive. As outlined in the Claim Interpretation section, HF can be considered a bifluoride source).
Toda fails to explicitly teach that during exposing the substrate to the gas mixture a pressure in the reaction chamber is between about 0.2-10 Torr.
However, Toda teaches that the pressure of the chamber during the process is about 10 to 300 Torr (Paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a pressure at a level within the disclosed range of about 10 to 300 Torr, including at values that overlap with the claimed range of about 0.2-10 Torr. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Toda fails to teach that the method further comprises: prior to (b), providing a second gas mixture in the reaction chamber and exposing the substrate to thermal energy and to the second gas mixture, wherein the thermal energy drives a second reaction between the second gas mixture and the target material to form a modified target material, and wherein the reaction in (c) etches the modified target material to thereby partially or wholly etch the target material.
Fischer teaches a method of selective etching (Paragraph [0002]). Fischer teaches a method where a first process gas and thermal energy modifies a surface prior to a second process gas being supplied and the modified surface being etched away (Paragraph [0079] Figure 6, process step 605 modifies the surface prior to process steps 609 and 611 where a different process gas is supplied and the modified surface is etched). Fischer teaches that by using one process gas in a first step to modify a material and another process gas in another to convert a modified layer to a material that will desorb and etch away grants the advantage of a more self-limiting process to prevent unwanted etching and may allow for desorption to occur at lower temperatures which can improve process speed (Paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Toda by including the step of providing a first process gas and thermal energy such that the target material was modified prior to the method taught by Toda.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because modifying the material in one step prior to etching the modified material in a different process step can prevent unwanted etching and improve process speed (Fischer Paragraph [0082]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The method step taught by Fischer would have the predictable result of forming a modified layer that could be etched by the method of Toda. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Toda teaches wherein the organic solvent and/or water comprises the water, as required by Claim 9, and wherein the organic solvent and/or water does not comprise any organic solvent, as required by Claim 10 (Paragraph [0049] water vapor may be used in place of an alcohol gas. When water vapor is used in place of an alcohol gas then the claimed “organic solvent and/or water” contains only water and does not comprise any organic solvent).
Regarding Claim 11, Toda teaches wherein the organic solvent and/or water comprises an alkane, an alcohol, an aromatic solvent, an ether, or a nitrile (Paragraph [0047] the gas mixture comprises an alcohol).
Regarding Claims 38, (Note: the term “bifluoride source” within these claims is being interpreted as was outlined in the Claim Interpretation section) Toda teaches wherein the bifluoride source comprises a bifluoride source selected from the group consisting of: ammonium fluoride, hydrogen fluoride, buffered oxide etch mixture, hydrogen fluoride pyridine, and combinations thereof, as required by claim 38 (Paragraph [0047] the gas mixture comprises hydrogen fluoride, which can be considered an additive that is a bifluoride source).
Regarding Claim 45, Toda teaches wherein the halogen source is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen bromide (HBr), fluorine (F2), chlorine (Cl2), bromine (Br2), chlorine trifluoride (ClF3), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), nitrogen trichloride (NCl3), and nitrogen tribromide (NBr3) (Paragraph [0047] the gas mixture comprises F2).
Regarding Claim 52, Toda fails to explicitly teach wherein the additive is from about 0.1-5% (by weight) of a total amount of the additive and the organic solvent and/or water.
However, Toda teaches that alcohol gas (equivalent to the claimed “organic solvent and/or water”) is supplied such that it is 10 to 85% by volume of the total of sum of F2 gas + HF gas + alcohol gas (Paragraph [0052]). Toda further teaches that F2 gas is supplied such that it is 0 to 85% by volume the total of the sum of F2 gas + HF gas (Paragraph [0052]). Therefore, HF gas (equivalent to the claimed “additive”) can be 15 to 100% of the total of the sum of F2 gas + HF gas. Out of the total sum of F2 gas + HF gas + alcohol gas, the sum of F2 gas + HF gas can be 15 to 90%. Therefore, out of the total sum of F2 gas + HF gas + alcohol gas, HF can be 2.25 to 90% (0.15*0.15=0.0225=2.25%, 1*0.9=0.9=90%). The vapor density of ethanol is 1.59 (Reference Document: PubChem – Ethanol), the vapor density of HF is 0.7 (Reference Document: PubChem – Hydrofluoric Acid). Therefore, the additive is supplied from 1.15% – 79.8% by weight of the total amount of additive and organic solvent and/or water (10% - 85% by volume ethanol, 15.9 – 135.15 weight ethanol. 2.25% to 90% by volume HF, 1.575 – 63 weight HF. 1.575/(1.575+135.15)=0.0115=1.15% , 63/(63+15.9)=0.798=79.8%)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the additive at a level within the disclosed range of 1.15% – 79.8% by weight of the total amount of additive and organic solvent and/or water, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 0.1-5% (by weight) of a total amount of the additive and the organic solvent and/or water. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 53, Toda teaches wherein a volumetric ratio of the halogen source to the additive is no more than 10 (Paragraph [0052] F2 gas, equivalent to the claimed “halogen source” is supplied such that it is 0 to 85% by volume the total of the sum of F2 gas + HF gas, where HF gas is equivalent to the claimed “additive.” Therefore, the volumetric ratio of {halogen source}/{additive} is taught to range from 0/100=0 to 85/15=5.6, and the entire range taught is less than 10 as claimed).
Regarding Claim 54, Toda teaches wherein the target material is an oxide, the substrate further comprising a second material different from the target material, and wherein (c) comprises selectively etching the target material with respect to the second material (Paragraph [0006] silicon oxide is selectively etched with respect to another material, silicon nitride)
Regarding Claim 55, Toda teaches wherein the target material is silicon oxide and the second material is silicon nitride (Paragraph [0006] silicon oxide is selectively etched with respect to another material, silicon nitride).
Claims 5, 33, 35, 40, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Fischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomberg et al. (US-20180182597-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Toda teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the organic solvent and/or water comprises a solvent selected from the group consisting of: acetonitrile, dichloromethane, carbon tetrachloride, and combinations thereof.
Blomberg teaches a method of etching that using vapor phase reactants (Paragraph [0004]). Blomberg teaches the use of a "first vapor phase reactant" and a "second vapor phase reactant" that can be supplied in sequential steps (Paragraph [0005]) and further teaches that the steps may overlap or be combined (Paragraph [0129]). Blomberg teaches that the "first vapor phase reactant" and the "second vapor phase reactant" can be halide reactants and that the method is used to etch a substrate (Paragraph [0005]). Blomberg teaches that a vapor phase reactant can comprise carbon tetrachloride (Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by including within the gas mixture carbon tetrachloride as taught by Blomberg. With this modification the claimed “organic solvent and/or water” would comprise carbon tetrachloride.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Blomberg teaches that carbon tetrachloride is a suitable reactant for use in vapor phase etching and the combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for use in a method of vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 33, modified Toda teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the additive comprises an organophosphorus compound.
Blomberg teaches a method of etching that using vapor phase reactants (Paragraph [0004]). Blomberg teaches the use of a "first vapor phase reactant" and a "second vapor phase reactant" that can be supplied in sequential steps (Paragraph [0005]) and further teaches that the steps may overlap or be combined (Paragraph [0129]). Blomberg teaches that the "first vapor phase reactant" and the "second vapor phase reactant" can be halide reactants and that the method is used to etch a substrate (Paragraph [0005]). Blomberg teaches that a vapor phase reactant can comprise a compound that includes phosphorus and an organic group (Paragraph [0043] reactant can have the formula L-SX2, where L can be an organic group, such as an alkyl group, and S can be phosphorus).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by including within the gas mixture an organophosphorus compound as taught by Blomberg. With this modification the claimed “additive” would comprise an organophosphorus compound.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Blomberg teaches an organophosphorus compound that is a suitable reactant for use in vapor phase etching and the combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for use in a method of vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 35, modified Toda teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the additive comprises an oxidizer.
Blomberg teaches a method of etching that using vapor phase reactants (Paragraph [0004]). Blomberg teaches the use of a "first vapor phase reactant" and a "second vapor phase reactant" that can be supplied in sequential steps (Paragraph [0005]) and further teaches that the steps may overlap or be combined (Paragraph [0129]). Blomberg teaches that the "first vapor phase reactant" and the "second vapor phase reactant" can be halide reactants and that the method is used to etch a substrate (Paragraph [0005]). Blomberg teaches that an additional reactant can be included to improve or tune the etching (Paragraph [0078]) and teaches that this additional reactant can be ozone (Paragraph [0078] an additional reactant can be ozone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by including within the gas mixture formic acid as taught by Blomberg. With this modification the claimed “additive” would comprise ozone, which is an oxidizer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of ozone as an additional reactant would allow for improving or tuning the etching process (Blomberg Paragraph [0078]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Blomberg teaches including an additional reactant in vapor phase etching and the combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for use in a method of vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 40, modified Toda teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the additive comprises an aldehyde, a carbene, or an organic acid.
Blomberg teaches a method of etching that using vapor phase reactants (Paragraph [0004]). Blomberg teaches the use of a "first vapor phase reactant" and a "second vapor phase reactant" that can be supplied in sequential steps (Paragraph [0005]) and further teaches that the steps may overlap or be combined (Paragraph [0129]). Blomberg teaches that the "first vapor phase reactant" and the "second vapor phase reactant" can be halide reactants and that the method is used to etch a substrate (Paragraph [0005]). Blomberg teaches that an additional reactant can be included to improve or tune the etching (Paragraph [0078]) and teaches that this additional reactant can be formic acid (Paragraph [0079] an additional reactant of HCOOH [formic acid]] can be included).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by including within the gas mixture formic acid as taught by Blomberg. With this modification the claimed “additive” would comprise formic acid, which is an organic acid.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the use of formic acid as an additional reactant would allow for improving or tuning the etching process (Blomberg Paragraph [0078]). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Blomberg teaches including an additional reactant in vapor phase etching and the combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for use in a method of vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 48, modified Toda teaches a method that meets all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the halogen source is a silicon halide or a metal halide.
Blomberg teaches a method of etching that using vapor phase reactants (Paragraph [0004]). Blomberg teaches the use of a "first vapor phase reactant" and a "second vapor phase reactant" that can be supplied in sequential steps (Paragraph [0005]) and further teaches that the steps may overlap or be combined (Paragraph [0129]). Blomberg teaches that the "first vapor phase reactant" and the "second vapor phase reactant" can be halide reactants and that the method is used to etch a substrate (Paragraph [0005]). Blomberg teaches that the first vapor phase halide reactant can comprise metal (Paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by using as the halide source within the gas mixture a metal halide as taught by Blomberg.
This modification would have been the simple substitution of one halide source for a halide source that was a metal halide. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP §2143(B). Furthermore, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 7 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Fischer as applied to claims 1, 53, and 54 above, and further in view of Fayfield et al. (US-6299724-B1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the organic solvent and/or water comprises a ketone.
Fayfield teaches a method of etching (Column 1, lines 11-15) that used gas phase etchants (Column 3 lines 51-56) and temperature during the etching process (Column 6 lines 12-14). Fayfield teaches providing a gas mixture the comprises HF, a carrier gas, and an enabling chemical (Column 6 lines 1-10). Fayfield teaches that the enabling chemical can be a ketone (Column 6 lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by using ketone within gas mixture.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Fayfield teaches that ketones can be enabling chemicals in a vapor phase etching process (Column 6 lines 15-21) and that the taught enabling chemicals can improve the etch rate (Column 1 lines 22-55). Additionally, this modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Fayfield teaches ketones are suitable compounds for use in vapor phase etching and the combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for use in a method of vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 56, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 53, and 54 as outlined above. Toda further teaches that the target material is silicon oxide (Paragraph [0006] silicon oxide is selectively etched with respect to another material).
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the second material is silicon (Si) or silicon germanium (SiGe).
Fayfield teaches a method of etching (Column 1, lines 11-15) that used gas phase etchants (Column 3 lines 51-56) and temperature during the etching process (Column 6 lines 12-14). Fayfield teaches providing a gas mixture the comprises HF, a carrier gas, and an enabling chemical (Column 6 lines 1-10). Fayfield teaches that the etching process can be used to selectively etch silicon oxide (Column 5 line 65 to Column 6 line 2, process can be used to remove silicon oxide material from substrate). Fayfield teaches that the substrate can be silicon or silicon germanium (Column 5 lines 26-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by using the method to selectively etch silicon oxide in relation to a silicon or silicon germanium substrate as taught by Fayfield.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The combination would have had the predictable result of selectively etching silicon oxide in relation to silicon or silicon germanium. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Fischer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (WO-2020054476-A1, machine translation).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Suzuki further teaches wherein the heterocycle is a heterocyclic aromatic compound, as required by claim 21, and wherein the heterocyclic aromatic compound comprises a heterocyclic aromatic compound selected from the group consisting of: picoline, pyridine, pyrrole, imidazole, thiophene, N-methylimidazole, N-methylpyrrolidone, benzimidazole, 2,2-bipyridine, dipicolonic acid, 2,6-lutidine, 4-N,N-dimethylaminopyridine, azulene, and combinations thereof, as required by claim 22 (Paragraph [0026] pyridine is included as a suitable example of an organic amine compound).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 21 as outlined above. Suzuki further teaches wherein the heterocycle is a halogen-substituted aromatic compound (Paragraph [0025] the organic amine compound can have hydrogen atoms that are substituted with halogens).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 21, and 23 as outlined above.
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach the use of a halogen-substituted aromatic compound selected from the group consisting of: 4-bromopyridine, chlorobenzene, 4-chlorotoluene, and fluorobenzene.
However, Suzuki further teaches the chemical structure of the organic amine compound and that within the taught structure the organic amine compound can have hydrogen atoms that are substituted with halogens (Paragraph [0024]). Suzuki further teaches the compound pyridine is an example compound of the taught organic amine chemical structure (Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the structure of pyridine by substituting a hydrogen with a bromine atom, as taught by Suzuki, to form 4-bromopyridine. This modification would have resulted in a compound that meets the limitations of the structure taught by Suzuki in describing a suitable organic amine compound for use in vapor phase etching.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been selecting from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Suzuki teaches a finite number of solutions for forming a suitable organic amine compound. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claims 25 and 26 modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above. Suzuki further teaches wherein the heterocycle is a heterocyclic aliphatic compound, as required by claim 25, and wherein the heterocyclic aliphatic compound is pyrrolidine, as required by claim 26 (Paragraph [0026] pyrrolidine is included as an example of a suitable organic amine compound).
Claims 39 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toda in view of Fischer as applied to claims 1 and 37 above, and further in view of Bandarapu et al (WO-2020041441-A1).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 37 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the bifluoride source reacts to form HF2- before or after delivery to the reaction chamber.
Bandarapu teaches a method of dry etching that utilizes a vapor (Paragraph [0056] vapor delivery used to dry etch). Bandarapu teaches that the vapor comprises a gas mixture that includes HF (Paragraph [0061]) and a solvent such as alcohol (Paragraph [0062]). Bandarapu teaches that during the etching process HF2 is formed and facilitates the etching of silicon oxide (Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda such that during the etching process HF2 is formed.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of etching silicon oxide. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 58, modified Toda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
Modified Toda fails to teach wherein the additive is a Lewis acid-base adduct or component thereof.
Bandarapu teaches a method of dry etching that utilizes a vapor (Paragraph [0056] vapor delivery used to dry etch). Bandarapu teaches that the vapor comprises a gas mixture that includes HF (Paragraph [0061]) and a solvent such as alcohol (Paragraph [0062]). Bandarapu teaches that ammonia can be added to the gas mixture used in etching (Paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Toda by include ammonia within the gas mixture. Ammonia can be considered a component of a Lewis acid-base adduct, and therefore with this modification the limitation of claim 58 is met.
This modification would have been obvious as it would have been the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a gas mixture suitable for vapor phase etching. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 1-3, filed 01/05/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant maintained the arguments presented in the response filed on 06/04/2025.
Examiner notes in response that these arguments were addressed in the Final Rejection filed on 09/05/2025, and examiner maintains the positions presented within that Office Action.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach that that newly entered limitation: “wherein the additive is selected from the group consisting of a heterocycle, an amine, an amino acid, an organophosphorous compound, an oxidizer, a bifluoride source, an aldehyde, a carbene, and an organic acid”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Toda teaches the inclusion of HF within the gas mixture, which can be considered a bifluoride source, as outlined in the Claim Interpretation section.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713