Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/612,457

ETCHING COMPOSITION, METAL-CONTAINING FILM ETCHING METHOD USING THE SAME AND SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD USING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
DUCLAIR, STEPHANIE P.
Art Unit
1713
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
71%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 71% — above average
71%
Career Allow Rate
567 granted / 795 resolved
+6.3% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
825
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
75.4%
+35.4% vs TC avg
§102
5.6%
-34.4% vs TC avg
§112
11.6%
-28.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 795 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review. 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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 11, 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on March 11, 2-26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 14-20 depend from claim 1 and can be examined without an undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the claims of Group I and Group II require a search of different classifications, terms and art applicable to one group would not necessarily be applicable to the other group. As such it would create an undue burden for the Examiner to fully examine each group. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GE et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0284704). With regards to claim 1, Ge discloses an etching composition comprising an oxidizer (Paragraphs [0028]-[0031]); an ammonium salt (Paragraphs [0045]-[0048]); an aqueous solvent (Paragraphs [0032]-[0038]) wherein the ammonium salt comprises an ammonium cation and an organic anion (Paragraphs [0045]). Ge does not explicitly disclose an accelerator wherein the accelerator comprises a first accelerator and a second accelerator, the first accelerator and the second accelerator are different from each other, and each of the first accelerator and the second accelerator comprises at least one of a group represented by Formula A, a group represented by Formula B, and a group represented by Formula C. However Ge discloses the inclusion of a metal chelating agent including citric acid (Applicants 2-E7), oxalic acid (Applicant’s 2-E23) and salicylic acid (Applicant’s 1-E1) (Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]) and a corrosion inhibitor including succinic acid (Applicant’s 3-E11) which renders obvious an accelerator wherein the accelerator comprises a first accelerator and a second accelerator, the first accelerator and the second accelerator are different from each other, and each of the first accelerator and the second accelerator comprises at least one of a group represented by Formula A, a group represented by Formula B, and a group represented by Formula C. While Ge does not explicitly disclose Applicant’s “first accelerator” and “second accelerator”, the disclosure of compounds which would satisfy Applicant’s claimed component render that component obvious. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of Ge to include the metal chelating (first accelerator) and the corrosion inhibitor (second accelerator) because the refence of Ge teaches that the chelating agent increases the capacity of the composition to retain metals in solution and to enhance the dissolution of the metallic residues; the corrosion inhibitor can be added to adjust the etch rate (Paragraph [0052]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using metal chelating and corrosion inhibitor as rendered obvious by Ge. MPEP 2143D With regards to claims 2-11, the modified teachings of Ge discloses the inclusion of a metal chelating agent including citric acid (Applicants 2-E7), oxalic acid (Applicant’s 2-E23) and salicylic acid (Applicant’s 1-E1) (Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]) and a corrosion inhibitor including succinic acid (Applicant’s 3-E11) wherein 1 or more of each of the metal chelating agent and corrosion inhibitor may be included in combination in the composition rendering obvious wherein i) the first accelerator and the second accelerator each are a first compound, ii) one of the first accelerator and the second accelerator is the first compound and the other of the first accelerator and the second accelerator is a second compound, or, iii) the first accelerator and the second accelerator each are the second compound; wherein the first compound is one of compound 1-E1, 2-E7 and 2-E23 (Applicant’s pending claim 8, in addition Applicant’s pending claim 4 formula 1-1), wherein the second compound is one of 3-E11 (claims 9-11). In addition while Ge does not explicitly disclose “… a first compound is compound capable for forming a cyclometallated 5-memebred ring represented by Formula CM5 or a cyclometallated 6-memebred being represented by Formula CM6…” the composition of Ge discloses a first compound and a second compound which render obvious Applicant’s claimed compounds. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. MPEP 2112.01 Therefore disclosure of the compounds which render obvious Applicant’s claimed first compound and claimed second compound are “capable of” forming Applicant claimed cyclometallated 5-memebred ring represented by Formula CM5 or a cyclometallated 6-memebred being represented by Formula CM6 as this would be a property of the chemical composition. With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Ge renders obvious wherein the metal chelating agent is present in amounts from 0.00001 toa bout 10 % by weight (Paragraph [0050]) and wherein the corrosion inhibitor is present in amounts from 0.00002 to about 10 wt% (Paragraph [0064]) which renders obvious wherein a weight ratio of the first accelerator to the second accelerator is 1:99 to 99:1. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Ge renders obvious wherein the metal chelating agent is present in amounts from 0.00001 toa bout 10 % by weight (Paragraph [0050]) and wherein the corrosion inhibitor is present in amounts from 0.00002 to about 10 wt% (Paragraph [0064]) wherein an amount of the accelerator is 0.001 wt% to 20 wt%, per 100 wt% of the etching composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I) Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0367199), Liu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0145311). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F. 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. /STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604742
Layout Design Method and Structure with Enhanced Process Window
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604690
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SELECTIVE METAL-CONTAINING HARDMASK REMOVAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598935
COMPOSITION AND METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A MATERIAL REMOVING OPERATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598964
HARDMASK INTEGRATION FOR HIGH ASPECT RATIO APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581881
PLASMA PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
71%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+19.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 795 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month