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 August 5, 2025. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 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 3-4, 9-11, 13-42, 44-76, 78-103, 105-124, 127-132, 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of the invention of Group I, claims 1-2, 5-8, 12, 43, 77, 104, 125-126 and 133-134 in the reply filed on August 5, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 138-139, 142-143, 146 and 148 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102:
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..
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Woods et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220139720), hereinafter “Woods”:--Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7: Woods teaches a method of etching a metal oxide layer over a substrate ([0002, 0030]), comprisingi) loading the substrate into a process chamberii) pulsing a first reactant into the chamber ([0021-0023])iii) purging the chamber iv) pulsing a second reactant into the chamberv) purging the chambervi) repeating steps ii) – v) until a predetermined thickness of the metal oxide layer is removed ([0028, 0052]) Woods further teaches that the metal oxide may comprise hafnium oxide ([0031]), the first reactant may be a fluorinating agent ([0028]), such as WF6 ([0037]), and 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” ([0040]) Alternately, although Woods does not disclose the exact combination of components recited in claim 1, 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 fluorinating agent as the first reactant and a chlorinating agent as the second reactant in the absence of an unexpected result.
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 8, 12, 43, 77, 104, 125-126 and 133-134 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blomberg et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180166255), hereinafter “Blomberg”.--Claim 8: Woods teaches the invention as above, wherein Woods teaches that “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” ([0040]). Although Woods discloses a general chemical formula for the metal halide, Woods is silent about a specific chemical formula of the metal halide. Blomberg, also directed to etching a metal oxide layer, such as hafnium oxide, by adsorbing a first reactant then converting the adsorbed species by exposing to a second reactant ([0004-0010]), teaches that the second reactant may be the same as the first reactant ([0162]) and that first reactant may comprise a metal halide, such as TiClx ([0113]). 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 TiCl4 as the second reactant in the invention of Woods because Woods 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 be TiClx.--Claims 12, 43: Woods is silent about a temperature during the etching. Blomberg further teaches that the etching may be performed at a temperature of 300 to 500°C (Claim 19, [0023, 0151]). 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 performed the etching at a temperature of 300 to 500°C in the invention of Woods because Woods is silent about a temperature during the etching, and Blomberg teaches that such etching temperature would be effective.--Claims 77, 104: Woods further teaches that “The cycle may be repeated to remove a predetermined thickness of the oxide layer” ([0052]), but is silent about a number for the repetition. Blomberg further teaches that the cycle may be repeated for 1 to more than 50 cycles ([0156, 0163]). 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 repeat the cycle for 1-50 times in the invention of Woods because Woods is silent about a number for the repetition, and Blomberg teaches that such number of cycles would be effective.--Claims 125, 126: Woods is silent about a duration of the etching. Blomberg further teaches that the layer may be exposed to the first reactant or the second reactant for about 0.1-10 seconds ([0160, 0162, 0147-0149]). 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 expose the substrate to the first reactant or the second reactant for about 0.1-10 seconds in step (ii) and (iv) in the invention of Woods because Woods is silent about a duration of the etching, and Blomberg teaches that such exposing time would be effective.--Claims 133, 134: Woods is silent about a pressure during the etching. Blomberg further teaches that the etching may be performed at a pressure of 0.001-100 torr ([0152]). 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 performed the etching at a pressure of 0.001-100 torr in the invention of Woods because Woods is silent about a pressure during the etching, and Blomberg teaches that such etching pressure would be effective.
Conclusion
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