DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18187055 application filed March 21, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on September 30, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 12, 43, 77, 104, 125-126, 133-134, 138-139 142-143, 146 and 148 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-42, 44-76, 78-103, 105-124,135-137, 140-141, 144-145 and 147; and withdrawal of claims 138-139, 142-143, 146 and 148 acknowledged
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 134 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “the chlorinating agent” in claim 134 lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this term is “a chlorinating agent”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6, 12, 43, 77, 104, 125-126 and 133-134 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Blomberg et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180166255), hereinafter “Blomberg”, in view of Nakatani et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220020598), hereinafter “Nakatani”:--Claims 1, 12, 43, 77: Blomberg teaches an Atomic Layer etching (ALE) process for etching a metal oxide layer over a substrate ([0002, 0030]), comprisingi) loading the substrate having a film to be etched into a reaction chamber ([0004]), wherein the film may comprise ZrO2 ([0007, 0030, 0037, 0154-0155]);ii) supplying a first vapor-phase halide reactant that adsorbs and react with the surface of the film to form adsorbed species ([0004-0009]), wherein the first vapor-phase halide reactant may comprise WF6 ([0040, 0165]); theniii) supplying a second vapor-phase reactant that converts the adsorbed species into volatile species, thereby removing a portion of the surface ([0004]), wherein the second vapor-phase reactant may comprise a halide ligand ([0005]), such as a chloride ([0099]); or a sulfur atom ([0111]), such as SO3 ([0018]), dithione ([0105]), and may further comprise SO3 ([0128, 0018]) ; theniv) repeating steps (ii)-(iii) a plurality of times ([0114]). Blomberg further teaches that any excess reactants and/or reaction by-product may be removed by purging with an inert gas ([0038, 0118, 0135-0136, 0148]), and that the substrate is maintained at 300-500°C ([0023]) Blomberg fails to teach the claimed feature that the second vapor-phase reactant may comprise thionyl chloride. Nakatani, also directed to an ALE process ([0004]), teaches that the ALE process comprises cyclically ([0043-0047]) supplying a first gas that adsorb on a surface of the film to be etched, such as a transition metal film ([0157]), to be adsorbed to the surface ([0005]), then supplying a second gas to react with the adsorbed species thus etch the film ([0095-0100]), wherein the substrate is maintained at 25-400°C ([0111]). Nakayani further teaches that the first gas may comprise a metal and a halide, such as F ([0087]), and the second gas may comprise a S-, O-, and Cl-containing gas, such as SOCl2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use SOCl2 as the second vapor-phase reactant in the invention of Blomberg because Blomberg teaches that the “the second reactant may be a metal halide ([0028]), such as a compound having formula “MXy, where M comprises one or more of Ti, Sn, Mo, W or Nb, X comprises one or more of Cl or Br, and y is 1-6”, and Blomberg teaches that the second reactant may comprise a halide ligand, such as a chloride, and/or a sulfur atom, such as SO3, and Nakatani teaches that SOCl2 may be effective to react with an adsorded species formed by a gas comprising metal and a halide, such as F.--Claim 6: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a first vapor-phase halide reactant consisting of WF6.--Claims 104, 125,126: Blomberg further teaches that the etching may be repeated 10-1000 times ([0140]), and each cycle may last 0.01-60 seconds ([0147]). It is noted that these overlap the claimed ranges.--Claims 133, 134: Blomberg further teaches that the chamber may be maintained at 0.001-100 torr ([0152]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. -- Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination of WF6 and SOCl2 shows unexpected results, as shown in Fig. 2, this argument is not persuasive. It is well settled that Appellant has the burden of showing unexpected results. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). Such burden requires Appellant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art (see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991)), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 34 on appeal (In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972)). The extent of the showing relied upon by Appellant must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the current case, the data fails to show the combination of WF6 and SOCl2 shows superior results over other common combination of first and second reactants used in the art.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights