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 .
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Sherpa discloses a semiconductor processing method (abstract) comprising:
flowing a fluorine-containing precursor into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (Fig. 4, step 405, [0043]), wherein a substrate is positioned within the processing region, and wherein the substrate comprises a layer of a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, [0027]);
contacting the substrate with the fluorine-containing precursor (Fig. 4, step 415), wherein the contacting forms a fluorinated portion of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (“may form a fluorinated portion of the stacked layers of the dielectric material 510” [0043];
flowing an inert precursor into the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber (Fig. 4, step 425, [0044]);
forming plasma effluents of the inert precursor (Fig. 4, step 430); and
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the inert precursor (Fig. 4, step 435), wherein the contacting removes the fluorinated portion of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material [0044], [0050], and wherein the method is performed at a chamber operating temperature of less than or about 20 °C [0059].
As to claim 2, Sherpa discloses that the fluorine-containing precursor comprises hydrogen fluoride (HF) [0046].
As to claim 3, Sherpa discloses that the processing region is maintained carbon-free while flowing the fluorine-containing precursor and contacting the substrate with the fluorine-containing precursor (e.g., when the precursor comprises HF, see rejection of claim 2).
As to claim 5, Sherpa discloses prior to flowing the inert precursor, halting a flow of the fluorine-containing precursor after a first period of time [0052]; and purging the processing region with a purge precursor [0052].
As to claim 6, Sherpa discloses that the first period of time is less than or about 5 minutes [0051].
As to claim 8, Sherpa discloses that the wherein the inert precursor comprises argon [0053].
As to claim 9, Sherpa discloses applying a bias power while contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the inert precursor [0055].
As to claim 10, Sherpa discloses that the bias power is 500 W or greater [0055], which is expected to overlap with the cited bias power.
As to claim 11, Sherpa discloses that the method is performed at a chamber operating pressure 5-75 mTorr [0060], which is within the cited range.
As to claim 12, Sherpa discloses that the method is performed at a chamber operating temperature of less than or about –50 °C [0059].
As to claim 13, Sherpa discloses repeating the operations for at least two cycles [0045].
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5-6. Further, Sherpa discloses that the fluorinated portion of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material is characterized by a thickness of less than or about 150 nm [0057], which overlaps with the cited range. The contacting also inherently happens for a second period of time.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2022/0199418 A1) as evidenced by Segers (2018).
Zhang discloses a semiconductor processing method [0002], [0027] comprising:
flowing 130 a fluorine-containing precursor (e.g., fluorine-containing gas, block 304C, Fig. 3C, [0038]) into a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber 120 (Fig. 1A, [0029]), wherein a substrate 110 [0036] is positioned within the processing region, and wherein the substrate comprises a layer of a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material 212 (silicon nitride, [0030], [0036]);
contacting (block 305, Fig.3C, [0038]) the substrate with the fluorine-containing precursor, wherein the contacting forms a fluorinated portion 213 [0045] of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (“passivation layer” with a certain ratio of silicon to fluorine, [0038]);
flowing an inert precursor into the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber (Fig. 4, step 425, [0044]);
forming plasma effluents of the inert precursor (Fig. 4, step 430); and
contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the inert precursor (argon, block 306, Fig. 3C, [0047]), wherein the contacting removes the fluorinated portion of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material [0047], and wherein the method is performed at a chamber operating temperature of -200 to 100 °C, e.g., below 0 °C [0048], which overlaps with the cited range of less than or about 20 °C with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the range.
As to claim 2, Zhang discloses that the fluorine-containing precursor comprises hydrogen fluoride (HF) [0038].
As to claim 3, Zhang discloses that the processing region is maintained carbon-free while flowing the fluorine-containing precursor and contacting the substrate with the fluorine-containing precursor (e.g., when the precursor comprises HF, see rejection of claim 2).
As to claim 5, Zhang discloses prior to flowing the inert precursor, halting a flow of the fluorine-containing precursor after a first period of time (the “duration of each step may be varied from 0.01 sec to 10 h” [0050], which encompasses the cited “first period of time”); and purging the processing region with a purge precursor [0052].
As to claim 6, Zhang discloses that the first period of time is chosen from the range of 0.01 seconds to 10 hours [0050], which overlaps with the cited range of less than or about 5 minutes.
As to claim 7, Zhang discloses in a different embodiment that the plasma apparatus may be a remote plasma apparatus [0034], which encompasses a plasma-free process, as evidenced by Segers (“A Remote Plasma Source is defined by the fact that the plasma is only generated and existing outside the process chamber. No plasma, only radicals are reaching the process chamber.” (abstract)).
As to claim 8, Zhang discloses that the wherein the inert precursor comprises argon [0047].
As to claim 9, Zhang discloses applying a bias power while contacting the substrate with the plasma effluents of the inert precursor [0049].
As to claim 11, Zhang discloses that the method is performed at a chamber operating pressure of 1 mTorr to 1 atm [0041], which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 12, Zhang discloses that the method can be performed at a chamber operating temperature of –80 °C to –50 °C, which is within the cited range [0046].
As to claim 13, Zhang discloses repeating the operations for at least two cycles [0050].
As to claim 14, see the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7 and 13.
As to claim 15, Zhang discloses that the fluorine-containing precursor further comprises hydrogen (hydrogen fluoride, HF, [0038]).
As to claim 18, Zhang discloses an operating temperature of –80 °C to –50 °C, which is within the cited range [0046].
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Engelmann et al (US 2019/0172762 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As to claim 4, Sherpa fails to disclose the use of a patterned mask material. Engelmann teaches that when conducting atomic layer etching (“ALE”), it is known and useful to include a mask layer in order to provide for a patterned etch (Fig.1, steps 104, 106). Engelmann is used as a general teaching that masking during ALE is a known and useful technique. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a patterned mask material overlying the layer of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material in the method of Sherpa because Engelmann teaches that such is expected to be a useful technique for forming patterned, etched surfaces.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 7 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zaitsu (US 2017/0156621 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As to claim 7, Sherpa discloses to apply a low plasma power to the processing chamber [0049], [0035]. Sherpa fails to disclose that the processing region is maintained plasma-free while flowing the fluorine-containing precursor and contacting the substrate with the fluorine-containing precursor. Zaitsu teaches that a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material (SiN [0033]) may be etched in a plasma-free process. More specifically, Zaitsu teaches to feed an etchant gas without applying RF power, i.e., plasma-free [0039]. The etchant gas chemisorbs, and then the process continues with purging, applying an RF power while an inert gas is supplied, and then purging again [0039]. The inert gas may comprise argon (Table 1, [0039]). Zaitsu is used as a general teaching that while a plasma process is useful for removing a modified surface layer (as in Sherpa), the formation of the modified surface layer does not require plasma. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain a plasma-free region while flowing the fluorine-containing precursor in the method of Sherpa because Zaitsu teaches that this is a useful technique in order to remove silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material from a substrate, and such is expected to give the predictable result of a removed material.
As to claim 14, see the rejections of claims 1, 5, 7, and 13.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claim 2, where hydrogen fluoride includes hydrogen.
As to claim 16, Zaitsu teaches that the flow rate of the etchant, the fluorine-containing precursor, ranges from 30-200 sccm (Fig. 4B), [0057], which is within the cited range. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited flow rate in the modified method of Sherpa because Zaitsu teaches that such flow rates are useful for modifying the surface to be etched.
As to claim 17, Sherpa teaches to repeat for any number of cycles, depending on the amount that is desired to be removed [0045]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat for at least ten cycles in the modified method of Sherpa because Sherpa teaches to repeat as many cycles as desired, and at least ten cycles is within the scope of one skilled in the art to remove a desired amount.
As to claim 18, Sherpa discloses that the method is performed at a chamber operating temperature of less than or about –40 °C [0059].
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
The discussion of Sherpa from above is repeated here.
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5-6. Further, Sherpa discloses that the fluorinated portion of the silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material is characterized by a thickness of less than or about 150 nm [0057], which overlaps with the cited range. The contacting also inherently happens for a second period of time. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contact such that the fluorinated portion has a thickness of greater than or about 50 nm because Sherpa already teaches a thickness of less than 150 nm, and selecting a smaller thickness within the claimed range is obvious in order to optimize the thickness for best results.
As to claim 20, Sherpa discloses that the first period of time is less than or about 60 seconds [0051]. Sherpa fails to disclose that the second period of time is less than or about 30 seconds. Sherpa is silent as to the second period of time. However, Sherpa already recognizes that time periods of 30 seconds or less are useful for at least the first period of time [0051]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited first period of time in the method of Sherpa because Sherpa already recognizes that time periods such as that cited are known and useful and it is within the scope of one skilled in the art to select and optimize the time period to give the final result of a removed layer.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 10, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2022/0199418 A1) as evidenced by Segers (2018).
The discussion of Zhang from above is repeated here.
As to claim 10, Zhang fails to disclose the value of the bias power. However, it is within the scope of a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the bias in order to achieve the desired etching (a higher bias) without damaging the substrate (a lower bias). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the bias to the cited value in the method of Zhang in order to optimize the process for best results in order to achieve etching without damaging the substrate.
As to claim 16, Zhang fails to disclose the flow rate of the fluorine-containing precursor. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited flow rate in the method of Zhang in order to optimize the process for best results depending on the size of the chamber and the amount of deposition desired.
As to claim 17, Zhang discloses to repeat a plurality of cycles to achieve desired etching [0050], but fails to explicitly disclose repeating for at least ten cycles. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat for ten cycles as cited in the method of Zhang in order to achieve the desired total etching amount.
As to claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 5-6. Zhang fails to disclose the thickness of the fluorinated portion. However, Zhang discloses to vary the gases provided into the chamber in order to vary the ratio of Si to F in the resulting fluorinated portion. [0038]. This suggests that as the ratio is tuned, so too the thickness can be tuned for best results such that a desired thickness is removed in the etching step of the cyclic process. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited thickness in order to optimize the process for best results of total etching.
As to claim 20, Zhang discloses that the first period of time and the second period of time are chosen from the range of 0.01 seconds to 10 hours [0050], which overlaps with the cited range of less than 60 seconds and less than 30 seconds. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited times in the method of Zhang in order to optimize the process for the desired amount of deposition and etching according to the final product design because Zhang already teaches times in the cited ranges are useful time ranges.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/221,505 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because etching stacked layers of silicon nitride and silicon oxide encompasses the instant claims processing a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing material. The claims are open to being a plasma process, and are encompassed by the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 19-20 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1-20 of commonly assigned 18/221,505. Specifically, see rejection above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned 18/221,505, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Amendment
The claim rejections from the first non-final rejection are repeated:
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Engelmann et al (US 2019/0172762 A1).
Claims 7 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zaitsu (US 2017/0156621 A1).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherpa et al (US 2025/0022714 A1).
Claims 1-6, 9-13 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/221,505 (reference application).
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (US 2022/0199418 A1) as evidenced by Segers (2018). Claims 10, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 2022/0199418 A1) as evidenced by Segers (2018). Zhang is newly cited to show a method of etching a silicon-and-nitrogen containing material by a fluorine-containing precursor contacting step and an argon, inert precursor contacting step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant attempts to invoke the common ownership exception under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C). However, in order to properly invoke this exception, the correct words must be used and the statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous, not buried in the arguments section of a response. In order for applicant to properly invoke common ownership to disqualify a U.S. patent document as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), applicant must submit the required statement that the subject matter in the U.S. patent document and the claimed invention were, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, owned by, or subject to an obligation of assignment, to the same person. See 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i). The statement concerning common ownership should be clear and conspicuous (e.g., on a separate piece of paper or in a separately labeled section). The statement must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b).
Conclusion
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