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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 8-10, 56, 92, 128 and 130-131 are pending in the Amendment filed 06/08/2026, as previously presented.
The prior art rejections of record are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments. See “Response to Arguments” below (persuasively arguing that Gupta is directed to plasma-based ALE process rather than the instantly claimed “thermal ALE process”).
However, claims 1, 5, 8-10, 56, 92, 128 and 130-131 are rejected in view of newly cited reference to Clark et al. (US 20220285163 A1), as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks” filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 8-10, 56, 92, 128, and 130-131 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US 20150270140 A1), and of claim 5 further in view of Tan et al (US 20150079786 A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of newly cited reference to Clark et al. (US 20220285163 A1).
Applicant’s argument is persuasive that Gupta is directed to a plasma atomic layer etching process, and therefore fails to anticipate the instant claims which require “A thermal ALE process”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the term “thermal ALE” excludes plasma-based ALE processes. The instant preamble results in a manipulative difference in the scope of the claim and is therefore given patentable weight, which differentiates the instant claims from plasma-based ALE processes disclosed by Gupta.
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)(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, 9-10, 56, 92, 128, and 130-131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 20220285163 A1).
As to claim 1, Clark discloses a thermal ALE process performed in a reactor for selectively etching a metal substrate [claim 1, “substrate comprising a metal oxide containing film to be etched”, “isotropic thermal atomic layer etching”] comprising the steps of:
(i) forming a chlorinated metal-containing layer on a surface of a metal by exposing the surface to a chlorinating agent [claim 1, “exposing the metal oxide containing film to a first gas stream comprising boron trichloride (BCl3) to modify a metal oxide containing outer surface”],
(ii) conducting a first purge to remove any excess chlorinating agent and/or reaction products [claim 2, “removing the first gas stream from the process chamber”; para. 0040],
(iii) forming a volatile etch product on the surface of the metal by exposing the chlorinated metal-containing layer to at least one volatilizing agent [claim 1, “exposing the modified metal oxide containing outer surface of the metal oxide containing film to a second gas stream comprising a borane reagent or an amine reagent to remove the modified metal oxide […] and expose a new metal oxide containing outer surface”]; and
(iv) conducting a second purge to remove the volatile etch product [claim 3, “removing the second gas stream from the process chamber before starting a next cycle”].
As to claim 9, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein the metal comprises one or more of cobalt, nickel, copper, molybdenum, ruthenium, tungsten and alloys including the same [para. 0031].
As to claim 10, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein the chlorinated metal comprises one or more of cobalt, nickel, copper, molybdenum, ruthenium, tungsten and alloys including the same [para. 0031].
As to claim 56, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein step (i) is performed at temperature between about 100 C and about 350 C [para. 0035, “between 100 C and 400 C, or between 100 C and 250 C”, which provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range].
As to claim 92, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein step (iii) is performed at temperature between about 100 C and about 350 C [para. 0043, “between 100 C and 400 C, or between 100 C and 300 C”, which provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range].
As to claim 128, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein step (i) and step (iii) are each performed at about the same temperature [para. 0035, “between 100 C and 400 C, or between 100 C and 250 C”, which provides sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range].
As to claim 130, Clark discloses the process of claim 1,wherein step (i) [para. 0035, “between 100 C and 250 C”] and step (iii) [para. 0043, “between 100 C and 300 C”] are each performed at a different temperature [Here, the second temperature range provides a higher, different temperature range, i.e., an upper temperature bound of 300 C compared to 250 for the first temperature rang].
As to claim 131, Clark discloses a metal-containing film etched by the process of claim 1, wherein the film comprises one or more of cobalt, nickel, copper, molybdenum, ruthenium, tungsten and alloys including the same [para. 0032].
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 20220285163 A1), as applied to claims 1, 9-10, 56, 92, 128, and 130-131 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20150270140 A1).
As to claim 8, Clark discloses the process of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the chlorinating agent comprises thionyl chloride (SOCl2) [Clark, claim 1, “BCl3”].
However, Gupta discloses a plasma ALE process comprising supplying halide-containing compounds for modifying metal material [claim 1, claim 5; para. 0656], and lists BCl3 and SOCl2 among various chlorine-containing species suitable for modifying a metal surface [claim 6].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modifying a metal surface using BCl3, of Clark, to include SOCl2 as the modifying agent, of Gupta, because it is an effective alternative to BCl3 for modifying a metal surface, as taught by Gupta [claims 1 and 6].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 20220285163 A1) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20150270140 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tan et al (US 20150079786 A1).
As to claim 5, Clark discloses the process of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the chlorinating agent is formed by mixing thionyl chloride (SOCl2) with pyridine.
However, Gupta discloses a plasma ALE process comprising supplying halide-containing compounds for modifying metal material [claim 1, claim 5; para. 0656], and lists BCl3 and SOCl2 among various chlorine-containing species suitable for modifying a metal surface [claim 6].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modifying a metal surface using BCl3, of Clark, to include SOCl2 as the modifying agent, of Gupta, because it is an effective alternative to BCl3 for modifying a metal surface, as taught by Gupta [claims 1 and 6].
Modified Clark fails to explicitly disclose the combination of thionyl chloride (SoCl2) with pyridine.
However, Tan et al (US 20150079786 A1) discloses a method for etching a metal stack [Abstract, para. 0015, para. 0021], comprising: providing a solution in vapor form of SoCl2 with pyridine [para. 0021], where pyridine acts as an activator to improve the etching ability of the solution [para. 0019].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of supplying vaporous SOCl2 to the surface of a metal to be etched, of modified Clark (as modified by Gupta), to include a vaporous solution of SOCl2 and pyridine, of Tan, in order to improve the etching ability of the solution, as taught by Tan [para. 0019].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show ALE methods, both plasma and thermal, that include chlorine-containing reactive agents [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights