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 June 22, 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.
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 temperature of the substrate during etching cycle is about 20-500°C ([0038]). This overlaps the temperature range recited in claim 1. 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 or second 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, in routine experimentations, to add a step (ii) to supply oxygen to the reactor ([0078]) after step (i) and before step (iii), and repeat step (ii)- (iv) a plurality of times in step (v). Blomberg further discloses that “(t)ypical ALE processes utilize a first reactant to form a first species on the substrate surface that is then removed by a second, excited species generated from a plasma” ([0003]); however, Blomberg further teaches “in some embodiments, the ALE reactions may have zero activation energy and therefore may not require any additional thermal energy. Thus, such reactions that do not use plasma reactants may also be referred to as chemical etching processes herein” ([0068]), and that “(i)n some embodiments, the substrate is not contacted with a plasma during the etching cycle” ([0005]). Thus, Blomberg teaches that the additional thermal energy to overcome the activation energy is supplied by plasma. Although Blomberg discloses “(t)hermal ALE methods can be more desirable in some situations than plasma ALE methods because thermal ALE methods can be less damaging to the underlying substrate” ([0068]), Blomberg teaches that the substrate may be pretreated with plasma ([0133]) (all emphases added). Thus one of skill in the art would interpret that Blomberg does not teach against using plasma to provide the activation energy. In fact, Blomberg teaches to treat the substrate with plasma prior to the etching. Rather Blomberg discloses that although typical ALE process uses plasma to excite etching species, in some embodiments an ALE process without plasma is preferable when the ALE reaction does not have high activation energy. 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 a plasma to provide an additional energy to the etching species in the case that the ALE reaction has a high activation energy. Blomberg fails to teach the claimed feature to provide 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. (e.g., slow) rates.” ([0092], emphasis added). Fischer further teaches to provide an ionic activation energy by using radicals or ions generated by a remote plasma during the etching when the material to be etched is an oxidized metal ([0092, 0094-0095]). 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 radicals generated by a remote plasma to provide the ionic activation energy to the second vapor-phase reactant that would enable the ALE in the invention of Blomberg because Blomberg teaches that it would be necessary to supply additional energy to enable etching when the ALE has a high activation energy, and Fischer teaches that radicals generated by a remote plasma may provide such energy. Blomberg and Fischer are silent about the structure of the remote plasma. Ma discloses a remote plasma chamber, which minimizes direct plasma formation or possible damage on substrate ([0029]), that 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 methyl vinyl ketone reads on the liquid organic solvent containing 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 June 22, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Blomberg teaches away from using plasma because paragraph [0068] of Blomberg discloses “In some embodiments, the ALE methods disclosed herein are thermal etching processes, as opposed to plasma etching processes. Thus, plasma reactants are not used in the ALE etch cycles. While referred to as thermal ALE processes to differentiate processes that use plasma reactants, in some embodiments, the ALE reactions may have zero activation energy and therefore may not require any additional thermal energy. Thus, such reactions that do not use plasma reactants may also be referred to as chemical etching processes herein. Thermal ALE methods can be more desirable in some situations than plasma ALE methods because thermal ALE methods can be less damaging to the underlying substrate.” (all emphases added), this arguments is not persuasive. The highlighted phrases clearly show that Blomberg teaches that thermal ALE process is preferable only in some situations or some embodiments. In view of the earlier teaching in paragraph [0003] that “(t)ypical ALE processes utilize a first reactant to form a first species on the substrate surface that is then removed by a second, excited species generated from a plasma” ([0003]) and that “In some embodiments the substrate is pretreated with plasma” ([0133]), one of skill in the art would interpret Blomberg’s teachings as Blomberg does not teach against using plasma on the substrate in every situations. Rather Blomberg encourages using plasma when necessary, such as to pretreat the substrate prior to the ALE etching, or to provide the additional energy that would be required to overcome the reaction activation energy in some situations. Furthermore, Ma teaches that the remote plasma chamber would minimize direct plasma formation and possible damage on substrate.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co.v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Blomberg teaches that the additional energy to overcome the reaction activation energy may be supplied by a plasma, but is silent about a method of producing the plasma. 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. (e.g., slow) rates.” ([0092], emphasis added). Fischer further teaches to provide an ionic activation energy by using radicals or ions generated by a remote plasma during the etching when the material to be etched is an oxidized metal ([0092, 0094-0095]). 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 radicals generated by a remote plasma to provide the ionic activation energy to the second vapor-phase reactant that would enable the ALE in the invention of Blomberg because Blomberg teaches that it would be necessary to supply additional energy to enable etching when the ALE has a high activation energy, and Fischer teaches that radicals generated by a remote plasma may provide such energy. Blomberg and Fischer are silent about the structure of the remote plasma. Ma discloses a remote plasma chamber, which minimizes direct plasma formation or possible damage on substrate ([0029]), that 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.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).-- Regarding Applicant’s argument that the specific combination of steps recited in claim 1 provides unexpected results and is sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. It is well settled that Applicant has the burden of showing unexpected results. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). Such burden requires Appellant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art (see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991)), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 34 on appeal (In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972)). The extent of the showing relied upon by Appellant must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the instant case, Applicant fails to show the claimed combination recited in claim 1 produces a result that is superior than a result that any similar combination would produce. For example, Applicant fails to show the claimed combination recited in claim 1 produces a superior result as compared to a result produced when the liquid organic solvent contains a functional group other than the carbonyl group or the carboxyl group.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights