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 .
Election/Restrictions
The Requirement for Restriction mailed 12/05/2025 contained an error in the Invention groupings. The Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative, Michael Varco, who orally elected Group I, with traverse.
Claim 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/18/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “claim 20 depends from claim 1 and therefore an undue search and examination burden would not result from examining claim 20 with claim 1”. This is not found persuasive at least because the scope of search and examination of claim 20 is not co-extensive with that of claim 1, and therefore further search and examination would be required beyond that of claim 1. Moreover, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as a process of chemical-mechanical polishing and post-CMP cleaning a substrate comprising metal and dielectric layers that do not comprise titanium.
Restriction with Corrected Invention Groupings
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to an etching compositions for titanium-containing layer, classified in C09K 13/06.
II. Claims 15-20 drawn to a method of etching a titanium-containing layer (claims 15-19) and a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (claim 20) classified in H01L 21/32134.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be 3. distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as a process of chemical-mechanical polishing and post-CMP cleaning a substrate comprising metal and/or dielectric layers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bae et al. (US 9677002 B2).
As to claim 1, Bae discloses an etching composition for a titanium-containing layer [claim 1, “etching composition has an etch rate ratio of titanium nitride to tungsten of about 10:1 or more”; claim 4], comprising
an oxidant [claim 1, claim 4, “hydrogen peroxide”];
an inorganic acid [claim 1, claim 4, “phosphoric acid”]; and
a selective etching inhibitor [claim 1, claim 4, “amide polymer”],
wherein the inorganic acid comprises phosphorus-based inorganic acid [claim 1, claim 4, “phosphoric acid”], chlorine-based inorganic acid, or fluorine-based inorganic acid, or any combination thereof, and
the selective etching inhibitor comprises a polymer having a nitrogen-containing repeating unit [claims 1-2, e.g., polyethyleneimine, polyallylamine].
As to claim 2, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide [claim 1, “hydrogen peroxide”].
As to claim 3, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the inorganic acid comprises phosphoric acid [claim 1, “phosphoric acid”].
As to claim 4, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the polymer having the nitrogen-containing repeating unit is a homopolymer [claim 2, e.g., polyethyleneimine, polyallylamine].
As to claim 5, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit comprises at least one of a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1 [claim 2, “polyallylamine”, “poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”, “poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”], a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-2, a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-3, and a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-4 [claim 2, “poly(2-vinyl-1-methylpyridinium bromide)”]:
PNG
media_image1.png
218
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Bae discloses the composition of claim 5, wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit includes the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-4, ring CY₂ in Formula 1-4 is a saturated cyclic group having 4, 5, 6, or 7 carbon atoms [claim 2, “poly(2-vinyl-1-methylpyridinium bromide)”].
As to claim 8, Bae discloses the composition of claim 5, wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit includes at least one of the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1 [claim 2, “polyallylamine”, “poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”, “poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”], the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-2, or the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-3, T₁ in Formulae 1-1 to 1-3 is the group represented by Formula AN, in Formula AN, T₂ is *-N(Z₁₁)-*, and ring CY₃ is a pyrrole group, an imidazole group, a pyrazole group, an aziridine group, an azetidine group, a pyrrolidine group, or a piperidine group, or in Formula AN, T₂ is and ring CY₃ is a saturated cyclic group having 4, 5, 6, or 7 carbon atoms.
As to claim 9, Bae discloses the composition of claim 5, wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit includes at least one of the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1 [claim 2, “polyallylamine”, “poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”, “poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”], the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-2, or the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-3, T₁ in Formulae 1-1 to 1-3 is the group represented by Formula BN, ring CY₄ in Formula BN is a pyrrole group, an imidazole group, a pyrazole group, an aziridine group, an azetidine group, a pyrrolidine group, or a piperidine group.
As to claim 13, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein an amount of the selective etching inhibitor is in a range of about 0.001 wt% to about 20 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 4, “0.01 wt%”, which is an explicit example within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claimed range; See also, Tables 3-5].
As to claim 14, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1,
wherein an amount of the oxidant is in a range of about 0.5 wt% to about 20 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 4, “1.8 wt% of hydrogen peroxide”, which is an explicit example within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claimed range],
an amount of the inorganic acid is in a range of about 30 wt% to about 80 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 4, “79.79 wt% of phosphoric acid”, which is an explicit example within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claimed range], and
an amount of the selective etching inhibitor is in a range of about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 4,“0.01 wt%”, which is an explicit example within the claimed range and therefore anticipates the claimed range].
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 9677002 B2), as applied to claims 1-5, 7-9 and 13-14 above.
As to claim 10, Bae discloses the composition of claim 5, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the selective etching inhibitor comprises a first polymer having a first nitrogen-containing repeating unit and a second polymer having a second nitrogen- containing repeating unit, the first nitrogen-containing repeating unit and the second nitrogen-containing repeating unit each independently comprise at least one of the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1, the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-2, the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-3, and the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-4, and the first nitrogen-containing repeating unit and the second nitrogen- containing repeating unit are different from each other.
Here, Bae discloses the etching composition may include “at least one” species of the amine or amide polymer [claim 2], and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select two or more of the listed species—including polyallylamine, poly(allylamine hydrochloride), and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) [claim 2]—with the predictable result of forming an effective etching composition.
As to claim 11, Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose an embodiment comprising:
wherein the selective etching inhibitor further comprises an amine-containing compound, and the amine-containing compound is different from the polymer having the nitrogen-containing repeating unit [claim 2].
Here, Bae discloses the etching composition may include “at least one” species of the amine or amide polymer [claim 2], and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select two or more of the listed species— including polyallylamine, poly(allylamine hydrochloride), and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) [claim 2] (i.e., alkylamines) [claim 2]—with the predictable result of forming an effective etching composition.
As to claim 12, Bae discloses the composition of claim 11, wherein the amine-containing compound comprises alkylamine [claim 2, “polyethyleneimine”, “polyallylamine”], alkanolamine, or both the alkylamine and the alkanolamine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 6, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination with other or refences, fails to teach or suggest the feature of: “wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit includes the repeating unit represented by Formula 1-3, CY₁ in Formula 1-3 is a cyclopropane group, a cyclobutane group, a cyclopentane group, a cyclohexane group, a cycloheptane group, a cyclooctane group, an oxirane group, an oxetane group, a tetrahydrofuran group, or a tetrahydropyran group.”, in conjunction with the limitations of claim 5 and 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show compositions having polymers comprising nitrogen-containing repeating units and inorganic acids and/or oxidizing agents [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713