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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, and 4-11 are pending. Claim 3 has been canceled. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed January 9, 2026, have been entered.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on January 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 9, 2026.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 9/10/25 have been withdrawn:
The rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al (US2015/0027978), has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al (US2016/0281038), has been withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamai et al (US2016/0281038) in view of Barnes et al (US2015/0027978).
With respect to rejection of independent, instant claim 1, Tamai et al teach a liquid composition that removes titanium nitride from a substrate without corroding tungsten or a low-k interlayer dielectric also present on said substrate. Said liquid composition has a pH between 0 and 4, inclusive, and contains the following: at least one oxidizing agent (A) selected from the group consisting of potassium permanganate, ammonium peroxodisulfate, potassium peroxodisulfate, and sodium peroxodisulfate; a fluorine compound (B); and a tungsten-corrosion preventer (C). The tungsten-corrosion preventer (C) either contains at least two different compounds selected from a group of compounds (C1) consisting of alkylamines, salts thereof, fluoroalkylamines, alkyl quaternary ammonium salts thereof, and the like or contains at least one compound selected from said group of compounds (C1) and at least one compound selected from a group of compounds (C2) consisting of polyoxyalkylene alkylamines, polyoxyalkylene fluoroalkylamines, and the like. The mass concentration of potassium permanganate in the abovementioned oxidizing agent (A) is between 0.001% and 0.1%, inclusive, and the mass concentration of the abovementioned fluorine compound (B) is between 0.01% and 1%, inclusive. See Abstract. The pH value of the liquid composition of the present invention is preferably 0 to 4, more preferably 0.5 to 3.5, and particularly preferably 1 to 3. The pH adjuster (sometimes referred to as “the component (D)”) for adjusting the pH value is not particularly limited as long as it can adjust pH, and examples thereof include mineral acids and organic acids such as hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, etc. See paras. 59-62. Preferred examples of the fluorine compound include hydrofluoric acid, ammonium fluoride, acidic ammonium fluoride, tetramethylammonium fluoride, potassium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid, ammonium hexafluorosilicate, tetrafluoroboric acid and ammonium tetrafluoroborate. These fluorine compounds may be used solely, or two or more of them may be used in combination. See para. 26. Suitable quaternary ammonium compounds include those in which R1 represent an alkyl group having from 8 to 18 carbon atoms, R2, R3, and R4 have an alkyl group from 1 to 4 carbon atoms. See paras. 36-39. Tamai et al exemplify compositions containing 2% by weight sulfuric acid, etc. See para. 77.
Tamai et al do not teach the use of an oxidizing agent such as iodic acid or a composition containing an oxidizing agent such as iodic acid, a fluorine compound, a metallic tungsten corrosion inhibitor, a tungsten oxide etching accelerator, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Barnes et al teach compositions useful for the selective removal of titanium nitride and/or photoresist etch residue materials relative to metal conducting, e.g., tungsten, and insulating materials from a microelectronic device having same thereon. The removal compositions contain about 0.001% to 2% by weight of at least one oxidant, about 0.01% to about 10% by weight of at least one etchant, from about 84% to about 99.99% by weight of at least one solvent which comprises water, about 0.001% to 2% by weight at least one corrosion inhibitor, and about 0.001% to 2% by weight of at least one surfactant. See Abstract and paras. 40-44. The compositions may have a pH from 0 to 4. See para. 27. Suitable oxidizing agents include hydrogen peroxide, iodic acid, periodic acid, nitric acid, potassium permanganate, etc., and combinations thereof. Suitable etchants include HF, hexafluorosilicic acid, tetraalkylammonium hydroxides having the formula NR1R2R3R4OH wherein R1, R2, R3, and R4 may be the same or different and is selected from H, linear or branched chain C1-C6 alkyl groups, etc., and combinations thereof. See paras. 25-32.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use iodic acid in the composition taught by Tamai et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Barnes et al teach the equivalence of potassium permanganate to iodic acid in a similar composition and further, Tamai et al teach the use of potassium permanganate.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing an oxidizing agent such as iodic acid, a fluorine compound, a metallic tungsten corrosion inhibitor, a tungsten oxide etching accelerator, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Tamai et al in view of Barnes et al suggest a composition containing an oxidizing agent such as iodic acid, a fluorine compound, a metallic tungsten corrosion inhibitor, a tungsten oxide etching accelerator, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using Tamai et al in view of Barnes et al, Applicant states that a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one oxidizing agent in Tamai et al with a different oxidizing agent from Barnes; That is to say, if the artisan would have expected such significant differences in TiN/V etching selectivity as are shown in the present specification, then the artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in swapping oxidizing agents between the Tamai and Barnes references.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that Barnes et al is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and Tamai et al and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of Barnes et al to cure the deficiencies of Tamai et al. Barnes et al is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of iodic acid. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use iodic acid in the composition taught by Tamai et al, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because Barnes et al teach the equivalence of potassium permanganate to iodic acid in a similar composition and further, Tamai et al teach the use of potassium permanganate. Note that, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 531 (1982); See MPEP 2144.06(I). Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of Tamai et al in view of Barnes et al are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Further, Applicant states that data has been provided in the instant specification which is sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Specifically, Applicant states that Examples 1-3 in Tables 1 and 3 of the instant specification provide data showing that the claimed invention provides unexpected and superior TiN/W selectivity in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in the instant specification is not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. The data provided in the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. For example, the instant claims are open to iodic acid in broad amounts, any fluorine compound in broad amounts, any metallic tungsten corrosion inhibitor in broad amounts, and a broad group of tungsten oxide etching accelerators in any amount, while the instant specification provides data with respect to only several specific embodiments which is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Note that, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980); See MPEP 716.02(d)(I). Applicant has not provided on this record a sufficient basis for concluding that the generic scope of protection sought by claim 1 is reasonably commensurate with the showing of alleged unexpected results. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978) (obviousness rejection affirmed because evidence establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof); In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Even assuming that the results were unexpected, Harris needed to show results covering the scope of the claimed range. Alternatively, Harris needed to narrow the claims). Note that, the evidence in the Specification is not commensurate in scope with the appealed claims. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (concluding that unexpected results “limited to sodium only” were not commensurate in scope with claims to a catalyst having an “alkali metal”. Appellants have not established that the results using the single embodiment in (Example 3) is representative of the results which would be obtained over the broad scope of compositions covered by the claims).
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point out that while Example 1, which falls within the scope of the instant claims, appears to provide etching selectivity for TiN/W which is unexpected and superior in comparison to Examples 2 and 3, which fall outside the scope of the instant claims, Examples, 7, 12, and 16, for example, which appear to fall within scope of the instant claims, provide etching selectivity for TiN/W of 12, 27, and 22 (See Table 3), respectively which are inferior to Examples 2 and 3; therefore, it appears that at least several compositions that fall within the scope of the instant claims do not provide unexpected and superior properties in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the data provided in the instant specification is not sufficient to show the unexpected and superior properties of the claimed invention in comparison to compositions falling outside the scope of the instant claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights