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 in the reply filed on July 21, 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 10,934,484 B2).
Liu discloses an etchant composition (abstract]) comprising:
a halide compound (a fluoride ion source is a halide compound, e.g., HF, col.6, line 12);
an oxidizing agent (e.g., hydrogen peroxide col.6, line 3);
a glycol solvent (e.g., ethylene glycol, col.7, line 14);
0.1% to 15 wt% (col.10, line 48) or endpoints including 0.1 and 30 (col.10, lines 55-56) of a surfactant (e.g., trifluoromethanesulfonic acid, col.9, lines 6-7) based on a total weight of the etchant composition, which range overlaps the cited range with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate the range; and
0.01% to 10% by weight (col.8, lines 27-28) of an inhibitor (“corrosion inhibitor” col.8, line 4) based on the total weight of the etchant composition.
As to claims 2-4, see the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises water (col.5, line 17).
As to claim 8, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises 1% to 8% by weight (col.6, line 46) of the halide compound based on the total weight of the etchant composition, which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 9, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises 0.001% to 40% by weight (col.5, line 48) of the oxidizing agent based on the total weight of the etchant composition, which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 10, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises 7% to 65% by weight (col. 7, line 64) of a glycol solvent based on the total weight of the etchant composition, which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 11, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises 0.1% to 10% by weight (col.10, line 49) of the surfactant based on the total weight of the etchant composition, which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 13, Liu discloses that the etchant composition comprises 0.1% to 10% by weight (col.8, lines 27-28) or endpoints such as 1, 3, 4, 5 (col.8, line 32) of the inhibitor based on the total weight of the etchant composition, which overlaps with the cited range.
As to claim 15, see the rejection of claims 11 and 13.
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.
Claims 5-6, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 10,934,484 B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al (US 2016/0185595 A1).
As to claim 5, Liu discloses trifluoromethane sulfonic acid (see rejection of claim 1), but fails to disclose a disulfonic acid surfactant. Chen teaches that in aqueous compositions that contain an etchant (such as HF, [0026]), oxidizing agent (such as hydrogen peroxide, [0028]), glycol solvent (such as ethylene glycol [0030]) that a useful surfactant to include is a disulfonic acid. More particularly, Chen teaches that “[d]iphenyloxide disulfonate surfactants represent a class of highly anionic surface active agents …in which the charge arises from two sulfonate groups and provides excellent emulsion stability.” [0031]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a disulfonic acid surfactant in the composition of Liu because Chen teaches that to do so is useful to obtain emulsion stability.
As to claim 6, Liu discloses that the cationic surfactant may comprise polyethylenimine (“PEI”) (col.9, line 60). However, Liu does not recognize the surfactant combination of a sulfonic acid and PEI. Chen teaches that “in addition to” the surfactant, the composition may include antiscalant polymer including PEI [0031]. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include both a disulfonic acid and PEI in the composition of Liu because Liu recognizes PEI as useful, and Chen teaches that the combination is also useful in order to obtain a stable composition and with antiscalant properties.
Liu and Chen do not explicitly disclose that the PEI is an inhibitor, however, compositions with the same structure are expected to have the same properties, including acting as an inhibitor. MPEP 2112.01, II (If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties).
As to claims 12, 14 and 16, see the rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mizutani et al (US 2024/0166948 A1) is cited to show an etching composition with a halide [0067], oxidizing agent such as acetic acid [0095], sulfonic acid [0135], [0164], propylene glycol solvent [0140] and amine [0176]. Liang et al (US 11,732,157 B2) is cited to show a polishing composition with a barrier film removal rate enhancer of 1,2-ethanedisulfonic acid (col.5, line 1) and TEOS removal rate inhibitor PEI (col.5, line 50). Kamimura (US 2023/0088854 A1) is cited to show a cleaning liquid composition with formic acid [0180], a disulfonic acid [0301], PEI or polyvinylpyrrolidone [0352], polyethylene glycol [0364], and water. Hong et al (US 2022/0049160 A1) is cited to show an etchant composition with HF [0029], hydrogen peroxide oxidizing agent [0030], propylene glycol [0034], disulphonate and PEI [0035]. Wu et al (WO 2016/042408 A2) is cited to show an etchant composition comprising HF [0028], peracetic acid oxidizing agent [0029], ethylene glycol solvent [0031], disulfonate NOVEC [0037], polyethylene glycol passivating agent [0032], and inhibitor [0030]. Coenjarts (US 2014/0021400 A1) is cited to show an etching composition with HCl [0049], hydrogen peroxide [0045], ethylene glycol [0055], sulfonic acid -group containing compound [0047], and polyvinylpyrrolidone [0066].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
