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 with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 8/25/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction requirement between combination/subcombination is improper. This is found persuasive. However, the restriction requirement between the method and device is maintained and deemed final the device can be made by a materially different process as addressed in the restriction requirement.
Claims 25, and 32-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/25/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3366519 A (Pritchard).
Re claim 26, Pritchard teaches a method of etching a workpiece comprising a lead component (Pb film), which method comprises: forming a mask on the lead component, the mask defining exposed regions of the lead component; and contacting the exposed regions with an etchant composition, wherein the etchant composition comprises an acid selected from nitric acid and acetic acid (Pb film wet etched in HNO3 to etch away exposed areas from AZ-17 photomask Col. 5 lines 6-37 and Col. 6 lines 56-75).
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 0 968 979 A1 (Hintermaier).
Re claim 26, Hintermaier teaches a method of etching a workpiece comprising a lead component (lead containing ceramic layer [0025]), which method comprises: forming a mask on the lead component (photoresist mask [0027]), the mask defining exposed regions of the lead component; and contacting the exposed regions with an etchant composition, wherein the etchant composition comprises an acid selected from nitric acid and acetic acid (nitric acid in wet etch solution [0035]).
Re claim 27, Hintermaier teaches wherein the etchant composition further comprises propan-2-ol (organic compounds like isopropanol (propan-2-ol is the IUPAC name for common isopropanol) added in to improve wetting/adhesion [0039]).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,725,213 (Pierce).
Re claim 26, Pierce teaches a method of etching a workpiece comprising a lead component (lead film Col 9 lines 41-57), which method comprises: forming a mask on the lead component (AZ-17 coat Col 9 lines 29-40), the mask defining exposed regions of the lead component; and contacting the exposed regions with an etchant composition, wherein the etchant composition comprises an acid selected from nitric acid and acetic acid (nitric acid (HNO3) wet etch solution Col 9 lines 29-40).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-19, 22-23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0133576 A1 (Marcus) further in view of ASTM International Standard Practice Microetchants for metals and alloys (ASTM International Standard Practice) further in view of JP 2009164250 A (Uda).
Re claim 17, Marcus teaches a method of etching a workpiece comprising a lead component (first facet layer which can be lead [0048]), which method comprises: forming a mask (PMMA resist mask [0100-0102]) on the lead component, the mask defining exposed regions of the lead component; and contacting the exposed regions with an etchant composition (in examples the weak link center portion is formed by wet etching the metal first facet layer [0106]).
However, Marcus is silent with regards to an appropriate etchant composition for lead wet etching.
ASTM international Standard practice for microetching metals and alloys teaches that acetic acid mixed with an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide is a common wet etchant for lead (etchants 112-117 page 15).
Uda teaches that etching rates of acetic acid based wet etchants can be adjusted by adding a common solvent like isopropyl alcohol.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to use a wet etchant solution comprising acetic acid as taught by ASTM International Standard Practice and additionally comprising isopropyl alcohol as taught by Uda to perform the wet etching of the lead film of Marcus.
The motivation to do so is that Marcus is silent with regards to appropriate wet etchants for when the lines are made of lead and thus the person of ordinary skill would look to the standard practice for acceptable etchants for Pb. Additionally, the wet etch of Marcus must be precisely controlled so that only the first facet layer over the weak link area is removed and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Uda to find ways to control the etch rate of the acetic acid based etch.
Re claim 18, ASTM Standard Practice further teaches wherein the acetic acid is present in the etchant composition in an amount in the range 10 % to 20 % by volume (etchants 112-117 page 15).
Re claim 19, Marcus, ASTM International Standard Practice and Uda further teach wherein the workpiece further comprises an aluminium component (the semiconductor nanowire can be AlSb [0064] Marcus); and wherein the method further comprises contacting the aluminium component with the etchant composition to oxidise the aluminium component (the etchant of ASTM International standard comprises oxidizer hydrogen peroxide and is used to etch away the metal material covering a portion of the AlSb nanowire. Aluminum is highly reactive to oxygen therefore the ordinary skilled artisan would expect that exposure of the AlSb to hydrogen peroxide would form aluminum oxide portions on the surface).
Re claim 22, Marcus further teaches wherein the forming the mask on the lead component comprises exposing a resist selected from an acrylate polymer and a methylmethacrylate-methacrylic acid copolymer (PMMA resist mask [0100-0102]).
Re claim 23, Marcus further teaches manufacturing a semiconductor-superconductor hybrid device including the lead component (Fig. 1).
Re claim 27, Marcus and ASTM International standard Practice teach the method according to claim 26 (see section 11 of 103 rejections), however, neither Marcus nor ASTM International standard Practice teach wherein the etchant composition further comprises propan-2-ol.
Uda teaches that etching rates of acetic acid based wet etchants can be adjusted by adding a common solvent like isopropyl alcohol ([0019]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to use a wet etchant solution comprising acetic acid as taught by ASTM International Standard Practice and additionally comprising isopropyl alcohol as taught by Uda to perform the wet etching of the lead film of Marcus.
The motivation to do so is that the wet etch of Marcus must be precisely controlled so that only the first facet layer over the weak link area is removed and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Uda to find ways to control the etch rate of the acetic acid based etch.
Claim(s) 26, 28, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0133576 A1 (Marcus) further in view of ASTM International Standard Practice Microetchants for metals and alloys (ASTM International Standard Practice).
Re claim 26, Marcus teaches a method of etching a workpiece comprising a lead component (first facet layer which can be lead [0048]), which method comprises: forming a mask (PMMA resist mask [0100-0102]) on the lead component, the mask defining exposed regions of the lead component; and contacting the exposed regions with an etchant composition (in examples the weak link center portion is formed by wet etching the metal first facet layer [0106]).
However, Marcus is silent with regards to an appropriate etchant composition for lead wet etching.
ASTM international Standard practice for microetching metals and alloys teaches that acetic acid mixed with an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide is a common wet etchant for lead (etchants 112-117 page 15).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to use a wet etchant solution comprising acetic acid as taught by ASTM International Standard Practice to perform the wet etching of the lead film of Marcus.
The motivation to do so is that Marcus is silent with regards to appropriate wet etchants for when the lines are made of lead and thus the person of ordinary skill would look to the standard practice for acceptable etchants for Pb.
Re claim 19, Marcus, ASTM International Standard Practice and Uda further teach wherein the workpiece further comprises an aluminium component (the semiconductor nanowire can be AlSb [0064] Marcus); and wherein the method further comprises contacting the aluminium component with the etchant composition to oxidise the aluminium component (the etchant of ASTM International standard comprises oxidizer hydrogen peroxide and is used to etch away the metal material covering a portion of the AlSb nanowire. Aluminum is highly reactive to oxygen therefore the ordinary skilled artisan would expect that exposure of the AlSb to hydrogen peroxide would form aluminum oxide portions on the surface).
Re claim 22, Marcus further teaches wherein the forming the mask on the lead component comprises exposing a resist selected from an acrylate polymer and a methylmethacrylate-methacrylic acid copolymer (PMMA resist mask [0100-0102]).
Re claim 23, Marcus further teaches manufacturing a semiconductor-superconductor hybrid device including the lead component (Fig. 1).
Re claim 28, Marcus, ASTM International Standard Practice and Uda further teach wherein the workpiece further comprises an aluminium component (the semiconductor nanowire can be AlSb [0064] Marcus); and wherein the method further comprises contacting the aluminium component with the etchant composition to oxidise the aluminium component (the etchant of ASTM International standard comprises oxidizer hydrogen peroxide and is used to etch away the metal material covering a portion of the AlSb nanowire. Aluminum is highly reactive to oxygen therefore the ordinary skilled artisan would expect that exposure of the AlSb to hydrogen peroxide would form aluminum oxide portions on the surface).
Re claim 30, Marcus further teaches wherein the forming the mask on the lead component comprises exposing a resist selected from an acrylate polymer and a methylmethacrylate-methacrylic acid copolymer (PMMA resist mask [0100-0102]).
Re claim 31, Marcus further teaches manufacturing a semiconductor-superconductor hybrid device including the lead component (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-21, 24, 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896