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 Group I (claims 1- 16 and 20), along with the species election, in the reply filed on 6/15/2026 is acknowledged. The claims 17-19 are still withdrawn as non-elected invention. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the invention II requires the particulars of invention I and so, there is no serious burden during examination of both the invention together. This is not found persuasive because this is not the search burden makes the inventions lake unity of invention but the technical feature of the composition in claim 1 (invention I) does not make a contribution over the prior art, discusses in the previous office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10-11 recites the features "R s31 to R s36". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2018/0163130) in view of Liu et al (US 2019/0088492).
Regarding claims 1,2-4,12-16 and 20, Kim et al disclose a composition comprises a composition and its use for selectively etching a SiGe layer (121, 123) in presence of a Si layer (110, 122) and a SiO layer (141, 142), [0019]-[0023], wherein the composition comprises:
an oxidizer (peracetic mixture, i.e. acetic acid+ H2O2 +/- sulfuric acid) (§ [0021]-[0026]); 0.01 -5 wt% of a fluoride ion source (ammonium fluoride, ammonium bifluoride) (§ [0042] - [0048]); 0.01 -5 wt% of a silicon compound such as an alkoxysilane or a disiloxane (§ [0056], [0058], [0061], [0063]) and water (§ [0052] - [0055]).
Kim et al discloses (example D; tables 1-3) for example the etching of SiGe relatively to Si and SiO2 with a composition comprising:
40 wt% peracetic mixture (mixture prepared by mixing the acetic acid aqueous solution of 100 percent concentration, the hydrogen peroxide aqueous solution of 31 percent concentration, and the sulfuric aqueous solution of 96 percent concentration, with a volume ratio of 33:26:1);
0.3 wt% HF, 0.1 wt% silicon compound of 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane, which resemble as the claimed additional selectivity enhancer of formula S41, and
water.
Kim et al differs from the instant composition in that the composition
comprises: (c) 0.001 to 3 % by weight of a selectivity enhancer of formula S1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu et al discloses (see example 5; [0094], Table 6) for example the etching of SiGe relatively to polySi with a composition comprising:
10wt% H2O2 (31%),
1.5wt% NH4F (40%),
0.5 wt% surfynol® 485, i.e. an alkyne dial ethoxylate, i.e. a selectivity enhancer of formula S1, and water.
Surfynol® 485 has the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu et al foresees the use of acetylenic dials and modified acetylenic dials as surfactants, provides, in example 5, Surfynol® 485 as an exemplified preferred surfactant of this type, and demonstrates that Surfynol® 485 aids in the suppression of poly Si etch rate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Liu et al's teaching of using the surfactant of Surfynol® 485 to the composition into the teaching of Kim et al for increasing the etching selectivity of SiGe as suggested by Liu et al.
Regarding claims 5-11, Liu et al disclose the use of acetylenic dials and modified acetylenic dials as surfactants, and provides, in example 5, Surfynol® 485 as an exemplified preferred surfactant of this type (i.e. a surfactant having the formula defined in claims 7, 8).
The skilled person would thus at least naturally envisage other surfactants of the same family, e.g., based on acetylenic glycols such as 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol aka Surfynol 104 (1) and its ethoxylates (2) (e.g., Surfynol 440 surfactant: x + y = 3.5; Surfynol 465 surfactant: x + y = 10).
Claims 1-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Villanueva et al (WO 2022/043165) in view of Liu et al (US 2024/0271040).
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).
Villanueva et al (WO2022043165) discloses a composition for selectively etching a silicon germanium alloy (SiGe) layer in the presence of a silicon layer (abstract), the composition comprising: (a) 10% by weight of an oxidizing agent (H2O2, Table 1a); (b) 14% by weight of an etchant comprising a source of fluoride ions (NH4F, Table 1a); (c) 0.005% by weight of a selectivity enhancer of formula S1 as recited in the instant claim (Surfynol®104, Table 1a) and (e) water (Table 1a; page 19).
Villanueva et al fails to disclose the composition comprises an additional selectivity enhancer of formula S41 and formula S49 (claim 13).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Liu et al disclose an etching solution for selective etching silicon germanium (abstract), wherein the composition comprises (i) water, (ii) at least one oxidizer, (iii) at least one fluoride ion source, (iv) at least one polyfunctional acid; (v) at least one corrosion inhibiting surfactant, (vi) at least one silane silicon oxide etch inhibitor and (vii) optionally at least one water-miscible organic solvent (abstract); and the silane silicon oxide etch inhibitor include methyltrimethoxysilane, ethyltrimethoxysilane, triethoxy(ethyl)silane, vinyltrimethoxysilane, trimethoxyphenylsilane, triethoxymethylsilane, trimethoxy(octyl)silane, propyltrimethoxysilane, isobutyl(trimethoxy)silane, trimethoxysilane, n-propyltriethoxysilane, trimethoxy(octadecyl)silane, hexadecyltrimethoxysilane, methyl(tripropyl)silane, ethyl(tripropyl)silane and propyl(tripropyl)silane [0092]; and aforesaid Methyltrimethoxysilane encompasses the claimed additional selectivity enhancer of formula S41 and also formula S49.
PNG
media_image2.png
376
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Liu et al's teaching of introducing the silane silicon oxide etch inhibitor, such as methyltrimethoxysilane into the teaching of Villanueva et al for increasing etching selectivity by inhibiting silicon oxide etch as suggested by Liu et al.
Regarding claim 9, Villanueva et al disclose the composition comprises acetylene dicarboxylic acid (see page 19).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights