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Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully questions with the position taken by the Examiner, and traverses this Restriction requirement.” This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not articulated a specific ground for traversal of the restriction requirement.
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 1-4, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSON et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20150294880) in view of KANARIK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0005472).
With regards to claim 1, Anderson discloses an etching gas composition comprising an organic fluorine compound (Paragraph [0127]).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose a composition comprising tungsten fluoride.
Kanarik discloses an etching gas composition comprising a fluorine containing gas and tungsten fluoride (WF6) (Paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Anderson to include the tungsten fluoride of Kanarik because the reference of Kanarik teaches that the inclusion of etching gases such a WF6 enhances the etch process by hardening the mask and increasing selectivity while etching the underlying silicon layer (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the tungsten fluoride gas a rendered obvious by Kanarik. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Anderson discloses wherein the tungsten fluoride is provided in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity (Kanarik Paragraph [0031]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of tungsten fluoride to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a content of the tungsten fluoride with respect to 100 parts by volume of the organic fluorine compound is 2 parts by volume or less in order to provide in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity as taught by the modified teachings of Anderson (Kanarik Paragraph [0031], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claims 3-4 and 7-8, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes aliphatic hydrocarbon having 3 to 10 carbon atoms, in which at least one of hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon is replaced with a fluorine atom; wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among an organic fluorine compound of a first group having 3 carbon atoms and an organic fluorine compound of a second group having 4 carbon atoms; wherein the organic fluorine compound of the second group includes at least two isomers and wherein the organic fluorine compound of the second group includes at least one selected from among hexafluoroisobutene; 1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, and (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4-hexafluorocyclobutane. (Anderson Paragraph [0127])
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious the composition further comprising: an inert gas (Anderson Paragraph [0146]); and a reactive gas (Anderson Paragraph [0150]).
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the inert gas includes at least one selected from among argon (Ar), helium (He), neon (Ne), nitrogen (N2), krypton (Kr), and xenon (Xe), (Anderson Paragraph [0146]) and the reactive gas includes at least one selected from among oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonylchloride (COCl2), carbonylfluoride (COF2), nitrogen monoxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ammonia (NH3). (Anderson Paragraph [0150]).
With regards to claim 11, Anderson discloses an etching gas composition comprising an organic fluorine compound including aliphatic hydrocarbon having 3 to 10 carbon atoms, in which at least one of hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon is replaced with a fluorine atom (Paragraph [0127]); an inert gas (Paragraph [0146]); and a reactive gas (Paragraph [0150]).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose a composition comprising tungsten fluoride.
Kanarik discloses an etching gas composition comprising a fluorine containing gas and tungsten fluoride (WF6) (Paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Anderson to include the tungsten fluoride of Kanarik because the reference of Kanarik teaches that the inclusion of etching gases such a WF6 enhances the etch process by hardening the mask and increasing selectivity while etching the underlying silicon layer (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the tungsten fluoride gas a rendered obvious by Kanarik. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Anderson discloses wherein the tungsten fluoride is provided in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity (Kanarik Paragraph [0031]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of tungsten fluoride to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a content of the tungsten fluoride with respect to 100 parts by volume of the organic fluorine compound is 0..01 parts by volume to 2 parts by volume in order to provide in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity as taught by the modified teachings of Anderson (Kanarik Paragraph [0031], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among CF4, C4F6 and C4F8. (Anderson Paragraph [0151]).
With regards to claim 15, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among (3R, 4S)-1,1,2,2,3,4-hexafluorocyclobutane, hexafluoroisobutene, and (2Z)-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene. (Anderson Paragraphs [0127])
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHEN et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0365487) in view of KANARIK et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0005472).
With regards to claim 1, Shen discloses an etching gas composition comprising an organic fluorine compound (Paragraph [0190]).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose a composition comprising tungsten fluoride.
Kanarik discloses an etching gas composition comprising a fluorine containing gas and tungsten fluoride (WF6) (Paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Shen to include the tungsten fluoride of Kanarik because the reference of Kanarik teaches that the inclusion of etching gases such a WF6 enhances the etch process by hardening the mask and increasing selectivity while etching the underlying silicon layer (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the tungsten fluoride gas a rendered obvious by Kanarik. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Shen discloses wherein the tungsten fluoride is provided in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity (Kanarik Paragraph [0031]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of tungsten fluoride to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a content of the tungsten fluoride with respect to 100 parts by volume of the organic fluorine compound is 2 parts by volume or less in order to provide in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity as taught by the modified teachings of Shen (Kanarik Paragraph [0031], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claims 3-6, the modified teachings of Shen renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes aliphatic hydrocarbon having 3 to 10 carbon atoms, in which at least one of hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon is replaced with a fluorine atom; wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among an organic fluorine compound of a first group having 3 carbon atoms and an organic fluorine compound of a second group having 4 carbon atoms; wherein the organic fluorine compound of the first group includes at least two isomers and wherein the organic fluorine compound of the first group includes at least one selected from among 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane, and 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane. (Shen Paragraphs [0190], [0200] Table 1)
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Shen renders obvious the composition further comprising: an inert gas (Shen Paragraph [0225]); and a reactive gas (Shen Paragraph [0222]).
With regards to claim 10, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the inert gas includes at least one selected from among argon (Ar), helium (He), neon (Ne), nitrogen (N2), krypton (Kr), and xenon (Xe), (Shen Paragraph [0225]) and the reactive gas includes at least one selected from among oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbonylchloride (COCl2), carbonylfluoride (COF2), nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). (Shen Paragraph [0222]).
With regards to claim 11, Shen discloses an etching gas composition comprising an organic fluorine compound including aliphatic hydrocarbon having 3 to 10 carbon atoms, in which at least one of hydrogen atoms bonded to carbon is replaced with a fluorine atom (Paragraph [0190], [0200] Table 1); an inert gas (Paragraph [0225); and a reactive gas (Paragraph [0222]).
Shen does not explicitly disclose a composition comprising tungsten fluoride.
Kanarik discloses an etching gas composition comprising a fluorine containing gas and tungsten fluoride (WF6) (Paragraphs [0022]-[0025], [0031]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Shen to include the tungsten fluoride of Kanarik because the reference of Kanarik teaches that the inclusion of etching gases such a WF6 enhances the etch process by hardening the mask and increasing selectivity while etching the underlying silicon layer (Paragraphs [0031]-[0032]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching using the tungsten fluoride gas a rendered obvious by Kanarik. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Shen discloses wherein the tungsten fluoride is provided in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity (Kanarik Paragraph [0031]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)) Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of tungsten fluoride to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of a content of the tungsten fluoride with respect to 100 parts by volume of the organic fluorine compound is 0..01 parts by volume to 2 parts by volume in order to provide in sufficient amounts to implant into the mask to increase the hardening of the mask and increase selectivity as taught by the modified teachings of Shen (Kanarik Paragraph [0031], MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 13, the modified teachings of Shen renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among CF4, C4F6 and C4F8. (Shen Paragraph [0224]).
With regards to claim 14, the modified teachings of Anderson renders obvious wherein the organic fluorine compound includes at least one selected from among 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane, 1,1,1,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane, and 1,1,2,2,3,3-hexafluoropropane. (Shen Paragraph [0190], [0200] Table 1)
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights