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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 11-12, and 15-21 are pending in the Amendment filed 04/16/2026, of which claims 15-20 are withdrawn.
The rejection of 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 (US 9677002 B2) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1.
However, claims 1, 4, 11-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae et al. (US 9677002 B2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues as to unexpected results over Bae:
“Referring to Table 1A in the Rule 132 Declaration, it can be seen that the difference between Example 1 and Comparative Examples 2 and 3 is that Example 1 uses polymer P1 in line with claim 1 and the comparative examples use polyacrylamide and poly( ethyleneimine) as the polymers, in line with Bae. It can be seen that the composition of Example 1 is associated with higher etching selectivity than Comparative Examples 2 and 3, which use polymers in line with Bae. There is no suggestion in Bae that using a selective etching inhibitor having the structure of Formula 1-1 in claim 1 would lead to improved etching selectivity.
“Applicants submit the Rule 132 Declaration provides evidence of unexpected results for claim 1. Paragraph 17 of the Rule 132 Declaration explains that "a distinguishing feature over Bae is that the selective etching inhibitor comprises the nitrogen-containing repeating unit comprises a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1 (e.g., poly(allylamine)) having the structure of Formula 1-1. The data in Table 1A in the Rule 132 Declaration and related text in paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Rule 132 Declaration provide evidence that the composition of Example 1 in Table 1A in the Rule 132 Declaration is associated with a higher etching selectivity than Comparative Examples 2 and 3 in Table 1A, where Comparative Examples 2 and 3 use polymers in line with Bae. Paragraphs 18 and 21 of the Rule 132 Declaration explain that Example 1 in Table 1A of the Rule 132 Declaration uses polymer P1 in line with claim 1 in paragraph 10 of the Rule 132 Declaration. Claim 1 of this amendment includes the features in claim 10 of the Rule 132 Declaration. “
“Paragraph 21 of the Rule 132 Declaration) states "Even if the skilled person used a poly(allylamine) in view of Bae, they would not in the expectation of obtaining improved selectivity. Bae simply lists a poly(allylamine) among other options."” [“Remarks”, pg. 14, para. 3-pg. 15, para. 1].
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the selectivity achieved by the instant invention, as put forth in the Declaration, does not significantly differ from the selectivity achieved by the compositions of Bae. For example, Tables 4 and 5 show multiple examples including PEI that achieve an etch rate ratio (TiN:W) in excess of 10:1. Moreover, since Bae teaches poly(allylamine) or poly(allylamine hydrochloride) may be suitably be used in place of, or in combination with, PEI [claim 2], then one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to achieve similar selectivity as achieved using PEI. Applicant’s results therefore appear to simply show results commensurate with the expected results of Bae, rather than unexpected results of improved etching selectivity.
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 1, 4, 11-12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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, “amine or amide polymer”; claim 2, “poly(allylamine), poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”], wherein
the selective etching inhibitor comprises a polymer having a nitrogen-containing repeating unit [claim 2, “poly(allylamine), poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”],
the oxidant is hydrogen peroxide [claim 1, claim 4, “hydrogen peroxide”],
the inorganic acid comprises phosphoric acid [claim 1, claim 4, “phosphoric acid”],
an amount of the oxidant is in a range of 0.5 wt% to 20 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 1, “about 1 wt % to about 7 wt % of hydrogen peroxide”, which overlaps and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range],
an amount of the inorganic acid is in a range of 30 wt% to 80 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 1, “about 20 wt % to about 80 wt % of phosphoric acid” which encompasses and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range], and
an amount of the selective etching inhibitor is in a range of 0.001 wt% to 20 wt% per 100 wt% of the etching composition [claim 1, “about 0.001 wt % to about 1 wt % of an amine or amide polymer”, which overlaps and therefore supports a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range; claim 2, “poly(allylamine)”],
wherein the nitrogen-containing repeating unit comprises a repeating unit represented by Formula 1-1 [claim 2, “poly(allylamine), poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”].
Bae fails to anticipate claim 1 because each of the disclosed examples of Bae include polyethyleneimine (PEI) as the amine or amide polymer [Tables 3-5]. The examples otherwise generally fall within the claimed ranges of each component, and the only difference between claim 1 and the examples is the polymer.
However, Bae discloses various other amine or amide polymers which may suitably be included with, or in place of, polyethyleneimine—including poly(allylamine) or poly(allylamine hydrochloride) [claim 2], which have the nitrogen-containing repeating unit of instantly claimed Polymers 1 and 2, respectively, and therefore fall within the scope of claimed Formula 1-1.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one species of the amine or amide polymer [claims 1-2], of Bae, to include poly(allylamine) or poly(allylamine hydrochloride) [claim 2], because they are effective polymers to form an effective etching composition with the desired TiN:W selectivity, as taught by Bae [claims 1-2].
As to claim 4, modified Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the polymer having the nitrogen-containing repeating unit is a homopolymer [claim 2, “poly(allylamine), poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”].
As to claim 11, modified 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 polyethyleneimine, polyallylamine, poly(allylamine hydrochloride), and poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride) [claim 2] (i.e., alkylamines)—with the predictable result of forming an effective etching composition.
As to claim 12, modified Bae discloses the composition of claim 11, wherein the amine-containing compound comprises alkylamine [claim 2, “polyethyleneimine”, “polyallylamine”, “poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”, “poly(diallyldimethylammonium chloride)”], alkanolamine, or both the alkylamine and the alkanolamine.
As to claim 21, modified Bae discloses the composition of claim 1, wherein the polymer having the nitrogen-containing repeating unit includes a polymer represented by one of Polymers 1[claim 2, “poly(allylamine), poly(allylamine hydrochloride)”] to 23, 38 to 45, 57, 112 to 114, 116, 119 to 122, 131, 132, 136, 137, 139, 200, 210, 205, 214, 216, 217, 271 to 279, 294 to 298, 306 and 307.
Here, Bae discloses poly(allylamine) and poly(allylamine hydrochloride) [claim 2], which have the nitrogen-containing repeating unit of instantly claimed Polymers 1 and 2, respectively.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 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
/BINH X TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights