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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1,3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choung et al (US 2015/0004758).
Regarding claim 1, Choung et al disclose an etchant composition comprises:
an inorganic acid, a persulfate includes ammonium persulfate [0010], which corresponding to the oxidizing agent.an oxidizing agent, a fluoride compound, [0009]-[0012], a pH adjuster [0069], an additive {0060] and water [0009], [0070].
Note: The preamble " for etching a molybdenum film and a modified molybdenum film while suppressing an aluminum oxide film and a silicon oxide film from being etched" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention [see MPEP 2111.02]. Claims directed to a product must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir.1997) [MPEP 2114]. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1729 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Since the product (composition) of the prior art teaches all of the components or ingredients of the claim, the product is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Choung et al disclose that the inorganic acid may be at least one of nitric acid, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, and perchloric acid [0012].
Regarding claim 4, Choung et al disclose that the oxidizing agent comprises ammonium persulfate [0010], which corresponding to the oxidizing agent.
Regarding claim 5, Choung et al disclose that the fluoride compound may be at least one of ammonium fluoride, sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride, ammonium bifluoride, sodium bifluoride, and potassium bifluoride [0011].
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al (US 2015/0004758) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Choung et al disclose for the claim 1 above and also disclose that the etchant composition including:
0.5 weight % to about 20 weight % of persulfate (corresponding to the claimed oxidizing agent);
weight % to 2 weight % of a fluoride compound (corresponding to fluorine compound); and 1 weight % to 10 weight % of an inorganic acid [0009]; and additive may be used in an amount of about 0.1 weight % to about 10.0 weight % with respect to the total weight of the etchant composition [0061]; and aforesaid ranges overlaps the claimed ranges for the inorganic acid, oxidizing agent and the fluorine compound and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.
Without showing any criticality of the content of the pH adjuster, it would have been obvious to optimize for maintaining the desired pH of the composition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al (US 2015/0004758) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eto et al (US 2021/0324271).
Choung et al disclose above for the claim 1 and also disclose the composition further comprises additional components a pH adjuster [0069] but fail to disclose the specific pH adjuster.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Eto et al disclose a semiconductor processing [0083] composition comprises a pH adjuster [0054],[0055]; which may select form ammonium sulfate, phosphoric acid, diammonium hydrogen phosphate, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate, etc. [0056].
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 Eto et al's teaching of the specific pH adjuster into the teaching of Choung et al for effectively adjusting the pH of the composition as taught by Eto et al.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution of known materials for predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choung et al (US 2015/0004758) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fulton et al (US 20005/0183740) and further in view of Medsker et al (US 2004/0048957).
Choung et al disclose above for the claim 1 and also disclose the composition further comprises additional components such as surfactant [0069] but fail to disclose the additive compound is a fluorochemical compound representing by the Formula 1 in claim 7.
However, Fulton et al disclose process and composition for removing residues including etch, metal, and non-metal residues from semiconductor substrates [0001], wherein the composition comprises surfactant [0008] and the surfactant includes perfluoroalkyl alcohols [0016] and aforesaid perfluoro alcohol broadly encompasses the claimed additive representing by the Formula 1.
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 Fulton et al's teaching of using perfluoro alcohol as a surfactant into the teaching of Choung et al for achieving a substrate surface without etched residues as suggested by Fulton et al.
Additionally, the modified teaching above may not specifically disclose the additive (surfactant) can be specific perfluoro alcohol as the context of claim 8.
However, Medsker et al appears to disclose a fluoroalcohol having general formula CF.sub.3CF.sub.2(CF.sub.2CF.sub.2).sub.xCH.sub.2CH.sub.2OH where x is generally an integer of from 1 to about 19 [0117]; for example, pentafluorobutanol [0118] being used and such easily reads on the claimed additive. Medsker et al also disclose that application of such could be metal technology applications such as anti-corrosion, etch bath wetting, for cleaning and scale removal, and for degreasing [0278] or in electronic etching baths [0280].
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 Medsker et al's teaching of utilizing or using fluoroalcohols (pentafluorobutanol) into the teaching of Choung et al for etching aid, like wetting agent in the etching bath as suggested by Medsker et al.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution of known materials for predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed in the PTO-892 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