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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/25 have been fully considered.
Applicant has argued that Gupta does not teach organofluorine compounds of carbon number C4 as recited in the amended Claims. However, the argument is not persuasive because Gupta teaches organofluorine compounds of carbon number C4 including organofluorine compounds that are isomeric to each other (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145 in context).
Applicant has argued that Shen does not teach organofluorine compounds of carbon number C4 as recited in the amended Claims. However, the limitations are taught by Gupta as recited above. Shen et al. further teaches at least two types of organofluorine compounds including isomers are used (Paragraph 206) in a multilayer stack etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use at least two types of the organofluorine compounds of Gupta et al. including isomers in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. in etching a multilayer stack with predictable results.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2016/0307764 to Gupta et al. in view of US Publication 2017/0365487 to Shen et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Gupta et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145 in context) an etching gas composition comprising organofluorine compounds of
carbon number C4, wherein at least two types of organofluorine compounds are isomeric to each other.
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Gupta et al. does not expressly teach at least two types of organofluorine compounds are used together. However, Shen et al. teaches at least two types of organofluorine compounds including isomers are used (Paragraph 206) in a multilayer stack etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use at least two types of the organofluorine compounds of Gupta et al. in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Gupta et al. teaches (implicit) the at least two organofluorine compounds have a chemical formula of C4H2F6.
Regarding Claim 9, Gupta et al. teaches (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145) the organofluorine compounds are respectively selected from among hexafluoroisobutene, (2Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4- hexafluoro-2-butene, 2,3,3,4,4,4-hexafluoro-1- butene, (2Z)-1,1,1,2,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, (2Z)-1,1,2,3,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4- hexafluorocyclobutane, or 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluorocyclobutane.
Regarding Claim 10, Gupta et al. teaches organofluorine compounds comprise a third organofluorine compound and a fourth organofluorine Compound, and the third organofluorine compound is (2Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and the fourth organofluorine compound is selected from among hexafluoroisobutene or (3R, 4S)- 1,1,2,2,3,4- hexafluorocyclobutane, but does not expressly teach to use third and fourth
organofluorine compound. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to use third and fourth organofluorine compounds of Gupta et al. in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, as applied above, Gupta et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach a molar ratio of the third and fourth organofluorine compounds. However, Shen et al.teaches (Paragraph 206) a mole ratio of the first organofluorine compound is selected in a range of about 70 mol% to about 80 mol% and a mole ratio of the second organofluorine compound is selected in arange of about 20 mol% to about 30 mol%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a mole ratio of the third organofluorine compound is selected in a range of about 70 mol% to about 80 mol% and a mole ratio of the fourth organofluorine compound is selected in a range of about 20 mol% to about 30 mol% in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, Gupta teaches organofluorine compounds hexafluoroisobutene and (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4-hexafluorocyclobutane (See at least Paragraphs 86 and 145) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a third organofluorine compound and a fourth organofluorine compound, wherein the third organofluorine compound is
hexafluoroisobutene and the fourth organofluorine compound is (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4- hexafluorocyclobutane with predictable results.
Regarding Claims 7 and 13, as applied above, Gupta et al. teaches the method of the invention substantially as claimed, but does not expressly teach the organofluorine compound, a molar ratio of the third organofluorine compound is selected in a range of about 40 mol% to about 60 mol% and a molar ratio of the fourth organofluorine compound is selected in a range of about 40 mol% to about 60 mol%.However, Shen et al. teaches (Paragraph 206) etching gasses may containi between 5 and 50% v/v isomers for example approximately 50-75% hydrocarbon and approximately 5-50% hydrofluorocarbon isomer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to provide a molar ratio for the third organofluorine compound 40-60% and the fourth organofluorine compound 40-60% in order to improve process parameters and/or reduce isolation difficulties and/or costs and/or the need for separate gas lines as recited by Shen et al. with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, Gupta et al. teaches an inert gas (Paragraph 141) and a reactive gas (Paragraph 144), wherein the inert gas is selected from among argon (Ar), helium (He), neon (Ne), or a mixture thereof and the reactive gas is oxygen (O2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Publication 2023/0386851 to Suzuki et al. teaches an etching gas composition comprising organofluorine compounds of carbon number C4, wherein the at least two types of organofluorine compounds are isomeric to each other.
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 Roberts P Culbert whose telephone number is (571)272-1433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 7:30 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at 571-272-1435. 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.
/ROBERTS P CULBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights