DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-18 are pending before the Office for review.
In the response filed December 30, 2025:
Claim 1 was amended.
Claim 19 was canceled.
No new matter is present.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 30, 3035 has been entered.
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 1-8, 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLMES et al (U.S. patent Application Publication 2021/0143310) in view of LADIZINSKY et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180308896).
With regards to claim 1, a method for selectively etching a metal component of a workpiece, which method comprises: forming a mask (510) over the metal component (410); and etching the metal component (410) using an etchant solution; wherein the etchant solution is a basic etchant solution (tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide); and wherein the workpiece includes a semiconductor component comprising a material of Formula 1: InAsxSb1-x where x is in the range 0 to 1 (discloses InAs, InSb therefore disclosing x=1, x=0) (Figure 5 Paragraphs [0069]-[0078]) wherein the metal component is situated on the semiconductor component. (Paragraphs [0072]-[0076] discloses forming the metal layer 410 over the top surface of semiconductor component 340).
Holmes does not explicitly disclose forming a hard mask over the metal component whereby the hard mask controls the etching and wherein the metal component is situated directly on the semiconductor component.
Holmes discloses epitaxially growing protective layer 350; an epitaxial semiconductor, on semiconductor layer 340 wherein the protective layers 330 and 350 protect surface of the semiconductor layer 340 form damage daring fabrication; wherein if the risk of damage during fabrication is sufficiently low, protective layer 350 may not necessary over the quantum dot structure (Paragraph [0074]); depositing superconductor layer 410 on protective layer 350 or semiconductor layer 340 if protective layer 350 is not used (Paragraph [0076]) rendering obvious wherein the metal component is situated directly on the semiconductor component.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Holmes to include directly depositing the metal component on the semiconductor component as rendered obvious by the general disclosure of Holmes because the refence of Holmes taches that the use of protective layer is not necessary is the risk od damage during fabrication is sufficiently low (Paragraph [0074]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired patterning using the metal component situated directly on the semiconductor component as rendered obvious by the general disclosure of Holmes. MPEP 2143D
Ladinzinsky discloses a method of etching a metal layer using a hard mask layer over the layer to be etched wherein the hard mask layer does not chemically react and only allows the exposed portions of the metal to be etched (Paragraphs [0097]-[0103]) rendering obvious forming a hard mask over the metal component whereby the hard mask controls the etching.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Holmes to include the hard mask as rendered obvious by Ladinzinsky because the reference of Ladinzinsky teaches that the hardmask is favorable in protecting the underlying layer during the etching process which removes the photoresist (Paragraphs [0100]-[0101]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired patterning using hardmask as rendered obvious by Ladinzinsky. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claims 2-3, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the metal component comprises a metal selected from aluminum, lead, and vanadium. (Holmes Paragraph [0076] layer 410).
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Holmes render obvious where x is in the range 0 (Holmes Paragraphs [0072]-[0073] discloses InSb which renders obvious wherein x=0).
With regards to claims 5-6 and 17, the modified teachings of Holmes render obvious wherein the basic etchant solution includes a strong base wherein the strong base is tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide (Holmes Paragraph [0081]).
With regards to claims 7-8, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the hard mask comprises a silicon nitride. (Ladizinsky Paragraph [0099]).
With regards to claim 11, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the semiconductor component comprises a nanowire (Holmes Paragraph [0066] discloses wherein the semiconductor component is a apart of the nanorod structure with dimensions appropriate to enable the nanowire to act as a one dimensional topological superconductor).
With regards to claims 12 and 18, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the workpiece further comprises a wafer of crystalline material, and wherein the semiconductor component is on a surface of the wafer or in a channel on the surface of the wafer wherein the crystalline material is indium phosphide. (Holmes Paragraphs [0069]-[0070] discloses the substrate may be formed of gallium arsenide or indium phosphide).
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the method further comprises, before forming the hard mask: fabricating the semiconductor component; and subsequently fabricating the metal component over the semiconductor component and the surface of the wafer (Holmes Figures 5 Paragraphs [0069]-[0078] discloses forming the semiconductor component 340 prior to forming metal component 410 followed by the formation of the masking layer on the surface of the wafer).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the semiconductor component is fabricated using selective area growth (Holmes Paragraphs [0069]-[0077] discloses epitaxially growing the semiconductor layer 340).
With regards to claim 16, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious wherein the semiconductor component comprises indium antimonide (Holmes Paragraph [0076]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOLMES et al (U.S. patent Application Publication 2021/0143310) in view of LADIZINSKY et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20180308896), as applied to claims 1-8, 11-14 and 16-18, in further view of LIM et al (Development of metal etch mask by single layer lift off for silicon nitride photonic crystals).
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Holmes renders obvious the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
However the modified teachings of Homes are silent as to wherein the hard mask is formed using sputtering and lift-off.
Lim discloses a method for patterning a silicon nitride layer comprising using a single layer Cr metal mask formed using an ebeam evaporator and performing a lift off process to form the hardmask for etching (See page 994-996) rendering obvious wherein the hard mask is formed using sputtering and lift-off.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified method of Holmes to include the sputtering and liftoff as rendered obvious by Lim because the reference of Lim teaches that such sputtering and liftoff enable the fabrication of mask patterns into the SiN for patterning a small spatial resolution (Page 998) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired patterning using sputtering and liftoff as rendered obvious by Lim. MPEP 2143D
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6 of Applicant’s response, filed December 30, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 11-14 and 16-18 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new interpretation of Holmes.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 of Applicant’s response that in Holmes the superconductor layer is situated on a protective layer (350), and a semiconductor layer (340) is sandwiched between the protective layer (350) and a protective layer (330). [Holmes, 1 007 and FIG. 5]. Therefore, Holmes does not disclose a "metal component is situated directly on the semiconductor component" as recited in claim 1.
However it is the Examiner’s position that Holmes renders obvious forming a metal component direct on the semiconductor component. Holmes discloses:
[0074] An embodiment causes the fabrication system to epitaxially grow protective layer 350, an epitaxial semiconductor, on semiconductor layer 340. In one embodiment, protective layer 350 is approximately 5 nm thick, although a thicker or thinner layer is also possible and contemplated within the scope of the illustrative embodiments. Protective layers 330 and 350 protect surfaces of semiconductor layer 340 from damage during fabrication. A damaged portion of semiconductor layer 340 could degrade device properties. Thus, if the risk of damage during fabrication is sufficiently low, protective layer 350 may not necessary over the quantum dot structure. In addition, protective layers 330 and 350 need not be the same material.
[0075] With reference to FIG. 4, this figure depicts a block diagram of an example configuration reached in the fabrication of a Majorana fermion quantum computing device in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. Application 105 in FIG. 1 interacts with fabrication system 107 to produce or manipulate configuration 400 as described herein. Substrate 310, buffer layer 320, protective layer 330, semiconductor layer 340, and protective layer 350 are the same as substrate 310, buffer layer 320, protective layer 330, semiconductor layer 340, and protective layer 350 in FIG. 3.
[0076] An embodiment causes the fabrication system to deposit superconductor layer 410 on protective layer 350 (or semiconductor layer 340, if protective layer 350 is not used), using physical vapor deposition (PVD), for example using evaporation or spattering. Superconductor layer 410 is formed of a material that is superconducting within a cryogenic temperature range of 77 K to 0.01K. Aluminum (Al), niobium, lead, tantalum nitride, titanium, titanium nitride, and vanadium are non-limiting examples of suitable materials for superconductor layer 410, although many other materials are suitable for forming superconductor layer 410 and the same are contemplated within the scope of the illustrative embodiments. In embodiments, superconductor layer 410 is between 5 and 50 nm, and preferably between 20 and 30 nm, thick, although a thicker or thinner layer is also possible and contemplated within the scope of the illustrative embodiments.
Therefore while Holmes does not explicitly disclose the formation of the metal layer directly on the superconductor layer, such teachings is rendered obvious by the disclosure of Holmes such that the protective layers are optional. As such Holmes renders obvious Applicant’s newly added limitations based on the Examiner’s updated rejection. As the dependent claims they remain rejected as no separate arguments have been provided.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713