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 § 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 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-32 are allowed.
Claims 20-21, 24 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach etching lead using acetic acid. The rejection relies on Marcus which establishes that the epitaxial growth of metals such as lead on semiconductor material ([0048]). Marcus further teaches that in the creation of a Josephson junction device using these materials the structure is masked off on the overlying metal is etched ([0100]). However, Marcus provides no information about the etchants which can be used to etch lead. The rejection then relies on Standard Practice for Microetching Metals and Alloys (ASTM) which is a reference document that identifies standard etchants used for various metals and their alloys. Thus document supports the use of acetic acid as the base etchant for pure lead which is present in etchant compositions 57, 112, 113 along with other additives.
PNG
media_image1.png
167
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
43
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
115
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
247
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the ASTM document only teaches etchants for microscopic examination. This is unpersuasive as the reference clearly states that the uses of the listed etchants 57, 112 and 113 explicitly for etching. Applicant has provided no evidence that the acetic acid based etchants for pure lead will not perform etching which is the gradual removal of the target material.
Applicant further argues that while Uda does teach the incorporation of propan-2-ol (isopropanol or IPA) in an acetic acid based etchant there is no motivation for the ordinary skilled artisan to add IPA to the acetic acid etchant as taught by ASTM because Uda does not explicitly teach etching lead. However, this is not persuasive as Uda is merely being relied upon to teach the known use of IPA to lower the reactivity of acetic acid when used as an etchant and as the Marcus reference states that the etching of the Josephson junction must be carefully controlled it would be obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan having the benefit of the listed references to find a way to control the etch rate of the acetic acid so as not to over etch the junction. Additionally, Applicant has provided no evidence that adding IPA to acetic acid does not change the etch reactivity of lead. In the absence of any teaching stating otherwise it is well within the expertise of the ordinary skilled artisan to expect the teaching of Uda to perform the same when the same etchant is used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights