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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on May 26, 2026, is acknowledged.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (as described in the specification at paragraphs 3-5). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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)(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 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
Kanjolia et al (US 2025/0109501 A1).
Kanjolia discloses a method substrate processing method for etching a thin film formed on a substrate at an atomic layer level (abstract), the substrate processing method comprising:
a surface modification step (step (i), [0045]) of modifying a surface of the thin film by supplying a first gas including chlorine (Cl) (chlorinating agent, [0045]) to a processing space of a chamber [0093] in which the substrate is placed [0093];
a first purge step of removing the first gas remaining in the processing space by supplying a purge gas to the processing space (step (ii), [0045], [0082]);
an etching step of etching the modified thin film by supplying a second gas including acetylacetone (Hacac) to the processing space (step (iii), [0045], [0057]); and
a second purge step of removing the second gas remaining in the processing space by supplying the purge gas to the processing space (step (iv), [0045], [0082]).
As to claim 2, Kanjolia discloses that a cycle including the surface modification step to the second purge step is repeated at least 1 time [0062], [0070].
As to claim 3, Kanjolia discloses that the thin film is a cobalt film [0079].
As to claim 8, Kanjolia discloses that the surface modification step to the second purge step are performed in a state in which the substrate is heated to a predetermined temperature [0061].
As to claim 9, Kanjolia discloses that the predetermined temperature is 130 °C, 140 °C, 150 °C, 160 °C, 170 °C [0059], [0060], which disclose the range with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the cited range.
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.
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanjolia et al (US 2025/0109501 A1) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to claims 4-5, Kanjolia teaches that cobalt is use in MRAM devices and semiconductor logic and memory devices [0007], but fails to explicitly disclose that the substrate includes at least one of a silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film. Applicant admits as prior art that a “conventional 3D NAND flash has a structure formed by alternately stacking silicon oxide and silicon nitride films and etching to form source lines and word lines.” (paragraph [0005] of the instant specification). Moreover, the instant specification admits that cobalt is a “common example of the material constituting the gate” (paragraph [0006] of the instant specification).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise silicon oxide or silicon nitride as cited in claim 4, or a stacked film with cobalt as cited in claim 5, in the method of Kanjolia because Kanjolia teaches to use the technique to form semiconductor devices which AAPA teaches that is known and useful to include the cited layers and structures.
Claims 6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanjolia et al (US 2025/0109501 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kanarik et al (US 9,579,811 B2).
As to claim 6, Kanjolia discloses that the second gas comprises Hacac [0057], but fails to disclose nitrogen. Kanjolia also fails to disclose that the first gas is Cl2. However, Kanjolia teaches that Cl2 is prevalently used in ALE processing, but are highly corrosive and toxic with difficult handling [0006]. Thus, Kanjolia recognizes chlorine as a useful chlorine-containing gas, but avoids it due to its difficult handling.
Kanarik teaches an atomic layer etching process (col.1, lines 30-45; col.4, lines 50-54) in which the first gas comprises Cl2 (col.4, lines 63-65, Fig. 1B) and the second gas includes a carrier gas such as nitrogen (col.5, lines 31-32). Kanarik teaches that any chlorine-containing compound may be used (col.5 lines 1-2). Thus, Kanarik generally teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be able to substitute various chlorinating agents within an ALE process.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cited chlorine and nitrogen in the method of Kanjolia because Kanarik teaches that they are known and useful within ALE processing, and even Kanjolia recognizes the usefulness of chlorine but for its difficult handling. For the case that one is willing to accommodate its difficult handling, it would have been obvious to use the cited chlorine because it is well known in ALE and Kanjolia recognizes that a chlorinating agent is useful for etching cobalt by ALE.
As to claim 15, Kanjolia discloses a substrate processing method for etching a thin film at an atomic layer level (abstract). The preamble is treated as a statement of intended use and is given little patentable weight.
Kanjolia discloses that the substrate processing method comprising:
a surface modification step (step (i), [0045]) of modifying a surface of the thin film by supplying a first gas including chlorine (Cl) (chlorinating agent, [0045]) to a processing space of a chamber [0093] in which the substrate is placed [0093];
a first purge step of removing the first gas remaining in the processing space by supplying a purge gas to the processing space (step (ii), [0045], [0082]);
an etching step of etching the modified thin film by supplying a second gas including acetylacetone (Hacac) to the processing space (step (iii), [0045], [0057]); and
a second purge step of removing the second gas remaining in the processing space by supplying the purge gas to the processing space (step (iv), [0045], [0082]).
Further, Kanjolia discloses that one cycle defined from the surface modification step to the second purge step is repeated at least 1 time [0062], [0070], and is performed while maintaining the substrate at a temperature of 125°C to 175°C, which range is described with sufficient specificity by the embodiments of predetermined temperature at 130 °C, 140 °C, 150 °C, 160 °C, 170 °C [0059], [0060].
As to the composition of the first gas and the second gas, the discussion of claim 6 from above is repeated here. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the cited chlorine and nitrogen in the method of Kanjolia because Kanarik teaches that they are known and useful within ALE processing, and even Kanjolia recognizes the usefulness of chlorine but for its difficult handling. For the case that one is willing to accommodate its difficult handling, it would have been obvious to use the cited chlorine because it is well known in ALE and Kanjolia recognizes that a chlorinating agent is useful for etching cobalt by ALE.
As to claim 16, Kanjolia discloses that the thin film is a cobalt film [0079].
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanjolia et al (US 2025/0109501 A1) and Kanarik et al (US 9,579,811 B2), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As to claims 17-20, the discussion of AAPA from above is repeated here. Further AAPA includes the cited slit-shaped openings and films (see Figure 1 of the instant specification).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate comprise silicon oxide or silicon nitride as cited in claim 17, a stacked film with cobalt as cited in claim 18, and openings, film trap and films as in claims 19-20 in the method of Kanjolia because Kanjolia teaches to use the technique to form semiconductor devices which AAPA teaches that it is known and useful to include the cited layers and structures.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al (US 2015/0270140 A1).
Gupta discloses a method substrate processing method for etching a thin film formed on a substrate at an atomic layer level (abstract), the substrate processing method comprising:
a surface modification step of modifying a surface of the thin film (100 nm layer of cobalt, [0709]) by supplying a first gas including chlorine (Cl) (Cl2, [00710]) to a processing space of a chamber 100 (Fig. 3) in which the substrate is placed;
a first purge step of removing the first gas remaining in the processing space by supplying a purge gas (N2 for 30 sec, [0710]) to the processing space;
an etching step of etching the modified thin film by supplying a second gas including acetylacetone (Hacac) [0710] to the processing space; and
a second purge step of removing the second gas remaining in the processing space by supplying the purge gas (second N2 flow for 30 seconds, [0710]) to the processing space.
As to claim 2, Gupta discloses that a cycle including the surface modification step to the second purge step is repeated at least 1 time (resulting in an etch rate of 1.6nm/cycle [0711]).
As to claim 3, Gupta discloses that the thin film is a cobalt film [0709].
As to claim 7, Gupta discloses that the surface modification step is performed in a state in which a plasma of the first gas is generated in the processing space [0710].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 18/787,320 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are fully encompassed by claim 20 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kohn et al (J Vac Sci Technol A 2019), Zhao et al (Appl Surf Sci 2018), and Fujisaki et al (Appl Phys Lett 2022) are cited to show atomic layer etching of cobalt. Fan et al (US 12,648,381 B2) is cited to atomic layer etching of cobalt with chlorine and a ligand containing plasma, but fails to disclose acetylacetone. Oyola-Reynoso et al (US 2023/0420267 A1) is cited to show etching ruthenium by a chlorine pretreatment [0022] followed by etching with acetylacetone [0031] performed cyclically [0035].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights