DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18538048 application filed December 13, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on March 19, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claim 2 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blomberg et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180182597), hereinafter “Blomberg”, in view of Fischer et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20250125155), hereinafter “Fischer”, and Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180230597), hereinafter “Ma”:--Claims 1, 6, 7, 10: Blomberg teaches a method for manufacturing an integrated circuit by using atomic layer etching (ALE) ([0003]), comprising(i) placing a substrate comprising a material to be etched into a reactor ([0131]), wherein the material to be etched may comprise a metal ([0144]), such as a 2D material and sulfide, such as MoS2 ([0145]), (iii) supplying a first vapor-phase reactant into the reactor, wherein the first vapor-phase reactant adsorbs to the material to be etched ([0060, 0066]), wherein the first vapor-phase reactant may comprise an α,β-unsaturated carbonyl compound, for example a ketone like methyl vinyl ketone ([0047]);(iv) supplying a second vapor-phase reactant into the reactor to form a volatile by-products that contain the adsorbate atoms, the second reactant atoms and some atoms from the surface being etched ([0060]);(v) repeating steps (iii) and (iv) a plurality of times. Blomberg further teaches that the sequence (iii) and (iv) may be reversed. Blomberg further teaches that an additional reactant, such as oxygen, may be provided separately ([0078]), and that the additional reactant may be introduced in a phase before the supplying a first vapor-phase reactant ([0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add a step (ii) to supply oxygen to the reactor before step (iii), and the step (v) would comprise repeat steps (ii), (iii) and (iv) a plurality of times. Blomberg further teaches that the temperature of the substrate during etching is about 20-500°C ([0038]) Blomberg further teaches that a typical ALE process use excited species generated by a plasma to provide activation energy ([0003]), but plasma may cause damage to the underlying substrate ([0068]). Blomberg fails to teach providing the activation energy by using radicals. Fischer, also directed to an ALE process for etching a chalcogenide material ([0051, 0067, 0071]), teaches that “an activation energy may be provided to assist with overcoming the activation barrier for the modifying molecule to adsorb on the wafer. This activation energy may be provided with thermal energy, radical energy, and/or UV photons, in some instances, which may include heating the wafer and/or generating a plasma or photons. This adsorption of the modifying molecule onto the first material may be considered chemical adsorption or “chemisorption” which is an energy dependent (e.g., a temperature dependent) chemical reaction. For some thermal etching techniques, this chemisorption during the modification operation may only occur at a particular temperature range that enables the activation barrier of the molecules in the layer of material and the incoming modifying molecules to be overcome which allows for dissociation and chemical bonding between these molecules and an adsorbate in the modifying molecule. Outside of this temperature range, the chemisorption may not occur, or may occur at undesirable (e.g., slow) rates.” ([0092]). Fischer further teaches to provide a thermal activation energy by maintaining the wafer at about 20-500°C ([0089, 0093]), or to provide an ionic activation energy by using radicals or ions generated by a remote plasma ([0092, 0094-0095]) during the etching. 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 provide both thermal activation energy and ionic energy to enable the etching in steps (iii) and (iv), including maintaining the wafer at about 20-500°C and supplying radicals of the first and second vapor-phase reactant generated by a remote plasma during the etching in the invention of Blomberg because Fischer teaches that this would advantageously provide sufficient activation energy that enable the ALE. Fischer is silent about the structure of the remote plasma. Ma teaches that a remote plasma chamber may be advantageously used to produce radicals to be used for etching ([0003, 0037-0039], Fig. 1). 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 an apparatus having a remote plasma chamber taught by Ma in the invention of Blomberg modified by Fischer because Fischer teaches to use a remote plasma but is silent about a structure, and Ma teaches that such apparatus would be effective. Blomberg is silent about a method of producing the vapor-phase reactant. Fischer further teaches that the vapor-phase reactant may be produced by vaporize a liquid reactant in a heated delivery pipe ([0125-0127]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention produce the vapor-phase reactant by vaporize a liquid reactant in the invention of Blomberg because Blomberg is silent about a method of producing the vapor-phase reactant, and Fischer teaches that this method would be effective. It is noted that step (ii) is equivalent to the second operation, and the combination of steps (iii) and (iv) is equivalent to the third operation recited in claim 1, and that methyl vinyl ketone comprises a carbonyl group. Although Blomberg and Fischer do not disclose the vapor-phase reactants react with the oxide layer to form a complex, since the vapor-phase reactants and the oxide layer in the invention of Blomberg modified by Fischer are the same as Applicant’s, they would react to form a complex, as taught by Applicant. It is noted that according to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).--Claims 3, 4: Blomberg further teaches that the second vapor-phase reactant may comprise a halide ligand, such as F, Cl, Br, or I ([0014]).--Claim 5: Blomberg further teaches that the second vapor-phase reactant may comprise HCOOH ([0079]), which is a chemical formula for formic acid.--Claims 8, 9: Fischer further teaches that the liquid reactant source 538 comprises a carrier gas source 540, such as N2, Ar,… ([0147-0148], Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Blomberg fails to teach adsorption the vapor-phase reactant on an oxide layer, this arguments is not persuasive. As explained above, Blomberg clearly teaches that an additional reactant, such as oxygen, may be provided separately ([0078]), and that the additional reactant may be introduced in a phase before the supplying a first vapor-phase reactant ([0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add a step (ii) to supply oxygen to the reactor before the step (iii) that would form the oxide layer.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Blomberg fails to teach the claimed temperature range, this arguments is not persuasive. As explained above, both Blomberg and Fischer teach to maintain the substrate at 20-500°C during the etching, which overlaps the claimed temperature range.
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