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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior arts fail to disclose the currently amended claim 1, specifically fail to disclose the processing target is a silicon -containing film and the oxide containing one or more of gallium, indium and zinc is any of InGaZnO4, In2ZnO4, Ga2ZnO4 and In2O3.
In response, examiner states that the specified polishing object is an intended use of the composition is not given a patentable weight; and the modified De Souza et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as claimed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
With regards to the hard mask comprising an oxide, examiner states that applied prior art, Yamazaki discloses hard mask can be prepared during dry etching a layer, wherein a sacrificial film 144a (corresponding a hard mask), which comprises a metal oxide containing indium, such as indium gallium zinc oxide (also referred to as an In-Ga—Zn oxide or IGZO) (see, the rejection) and such IZGO commonly expresses by InGaZnO4, which is supported by Hatta et al (US 2012/0273817 see, claim 14) and Wu et al (Synthesis of InGaZnO4 nanoparticles using low temperature multistep co-precipitation method; Materials Chemistry and Physics 162 (2015) 386e391), wherein Wu et al disclose that Indium gallium zinc oxide (InGaZnO4, IGZO) (see, the abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Souza et al (US 2018/0294163) in view of Yamazaki et al (US 2024/0196712), supported with Wu et al (Materials Chemistry and Physics 162 (2015) 386-391).
Regarding claim 1, De Souza et al discloses a hard mask of zinc oxide (420), which is near-amorphous and used for etching a silicon dioxide layer 410 (corresponding to a "processing object"), which is an amorphous ZnO layer 405 (corresponding to an "oxide including one or more of gallium, indium, and zinc"). (paragraphs [0027]-[0033], fig. 4A-4E).
De Souza et al fail to disclose the oxide layer containing from the list as required in the claim 1.
However, Yamazaki et al disclose the hard mask can be prepared during dry etching a layer, wherein a sacrificial film 144a (corresponding a hard mask), which comprises a metal oxide containing indium, such as indium gallium zinc oxide (also referred to as an In-Ga—Zn oxide or IGZO), formed by a sputtering method is used for the sacrificial film 146a, the sacrificial film 146a formed by a sputtering method is etched here to form a hard mask [0190], and such IZGO commonly expresses by InGaZnO4, which is supported with Wu et al disclose that Indium gallium zinc oxide (InGaZnO4, IGZO) (see, the abstract).
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 Yamazaki et al's teaching of forming a hard mask of indium gallium zinc oxide into the teaching of De Souza et al for efficiently forming a hard mask as suggested by Yamazaki et al.
Additionally, it would have a simple substitution of known materials for predictable result as suggested by Yamazaki et al.
Further, the specified polishing object is an intended use of the composition is not given a patentable weight; and the modified De Souza et al’s composition has all the claimed components and which is capable of performing the intended use of the composition as claimed. Likewise, the intended use of composition is not patentably significant. In re Albertson 141 USPQ 730 (CCPA 1964).
Regarding claim 3, De Souza et al disclose discloses for example, CF4, CHF3, CH₂F6, and SF6 as etching gases for a silicon oxide layer (420) (paragraph [0030), which gases corresponding the claimed ”fluorine-containing gas”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6,8,11-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or renders obvious to a process including the step of etching the processing target using the hard mask as a mask, wherein the processing target is a silicon-containing film, and wherein the oxide that contains one or more of gallium, indium, and zinc is amorphous and is any of InGaZnO,In2ZnO4, Ga2ZnO4, and In2O3 as the context of claim 6.
The prior art fails to teach or renders obvious to a process including the step of after the etching the processing target, removing the hard mask by supplying a mixed gas of BCl3 and 02 to the hard mask to reform the hard mask and then performing pure water cleaning as the context of the claims 14 and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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