DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-28 are pending before the Office for review.
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
Claims 24-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 26, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on August 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the organophosphorus compound" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 16 should be dependent from claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0157422) in view of MIZUTANI et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0001145).
With regards to claim 1, Liu discloses an etching composition, comprising: at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide (Paragraphs [0034]-[0035]); an amine of formula (I): N-R1R2R3, wherein R1 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH or NH2, R2 is H or C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH, and R3 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH (Paragraphs [0034]-[0038]) at least one organic solvent selected from water soluble alcohols, water soluble ketones, water soluble esters, and water-soluble ethers (Paragraphs [0044]-[0045]; and water (Paragraphs [0032]-[0033]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose at least one first amine and at least one second amine different from the first amine, wherein the second amine comprises an amine of formula (I): N-R1R2R3, wherein R1 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH or NH2, R2 is H or C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH, and R3 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH.
Mizutani discloses an etching composition comprising at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide (Paragraph [0032]), an organic amine wherein the organic amine includes an alkanolamine and/or an organic amine wherein the alkanolamine include monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, triethanolamine and wherein the organic amin include diethylenetriamine and 1,3-propanediamine (Paragraph [0031]) which renders obvious at least one first amine and at least one second amine different from the first amine, wherein the second amine comprises an amine of formula (I): N-R1R2R3, wherein R1 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH or NH2, R2 is H or C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH, and R3 is C1-C8 alkyl optionally substituted by OH.
It would have been prima facie obvious to know of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Liu to include the first and second amine as rendered obvious by Mizutani because the reference of Mizutani teaches that such organic amines can provide for a high etching rate (Paragraph [0034]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching composition using the amines as rendered obvious by Mizutani. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide comprises tetramethylammonium hydroxide, tetraethylammonium hydroxide, or tetrabutylammonium hydroxide. (Liu Paragraph [0035]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the at least one quaternary ammonium hydroxide is in an amount of from about 2-15 wt% (Liu Paragraph [0037]) which renders obvious about 1 wt% to about 15 wt% of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 4-6, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the diamine is 1,2-diaminopropane (Mizutani Paragraph [0031] discloses 1,3-propanediamine).
With regards to claims 7-8, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the triamine is diethylene triamine (Mizutani Paragraph [0031] discloses diethylenetriamine).
With regards to claim 9, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the alkaline compound is preferably 3 to 25 mass% (Mizutani Paragraph [0034]) which renders obvious wherein the first amine is in an amount of from about 10 wt% to about 40 wt% of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 10-11, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the second amine Is an aminoalcohol and wherein the aminoalcohol is selected from monoethanolamine, diethanolamine and triethanolamine. (Liu Paragraphs [0040]-[0041], Mizutani Paragraph [0031]).
With regards to claim 12, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the second amine is in an amount of form 0.5 wt% (Liu Paragraph [0042]) which renders obvious wherein the second amine is in an amount of from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claims 17-18, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the organic solvent is an alkylene glycol and wherein the alkylene glycol is ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, triethylene glycol or tetraethyleneglycol. (Liu Paragraph [0044]).
With regards to claims 19-20, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the organic solvent is an alkylene glycol ether and wherein the alkylene glycol ether is selected from ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, ethylene glycol mono n-propyl ether, ethylene glycol monoisopropyl ether, ethylene glycol mono n-butyl ether, diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, diethylene glycol monobutylether, triethylene glycol monomethyl ether, triethylene glycol monoethyl ether, triethylene glycol monobutyl ether, 1-methoxy-2-propanol, 2-methoxy-1-propanol, 1-ethoxy-2-propanol, 2-ethoxy-1-propanol, propylene glycol mono-n-propyl ether, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, dipropylene glycol monoethyl ether, dipropylene glycol mono-n-propyl ether, tripropylene glycol monoethyl ether, tripropylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobenzyl ether, and diethylene glycol monobenzyl ether. (Liu Paragraph [0044]).
With regards to claim 21, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the organic solvent is in an amount of from about 5-30 wt% (Liu Paragraph [0045]) which renders obvious about 2 wt% to about 40 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
With regards to claim 22, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the composition has a pH from about 11 to about 14. (Liu Paragraph [0034]).
With regards to claim 23, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the water is in an amount form 10-50 wt% (Liu Paragraph [0083]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of about 25 wt% to about 80 wt% of the composition. (Liu Paragraph [0083]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0157422) in view of MIZUTANI et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0001145), as applied to claims 1-12 and 17-23, in further view of KYU et al (KR20220078998 as evidenced by the machine translation).
With regards to claims 13-16, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious the limitations of claim 1 as previously discussed.
However, the modified teachings of Liu are silent as to further comprising at least one organophosphorus compound; wherein the organophosphorus compound is a phosphinamide; wherein phosphinamide is diphenylphosphinamide and wherein the organophosphorus compound is in an amount of from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% of the composition.
Kyu discloses an etching composition comprising a phosphite based compound wherein the phosphite based compound may be included in an amount of 0.1 to 5 wt %; wherein the phosphite based compound includes diphenyl phosphite (Paragraphs [0054]-[0073]) which renders obvious at least one organophosphorus compound; wherein the organophosphorus compound is a phosphinamide; wherein phosphinamide is diphenylphosphinamide and wherein the organophosphorus compound is in an amount of from about 0.01 wt% to about 0.5 wt% of the composition. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
It would have been prima facie obvious to know of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the modified composition of Liu to include organophosphorus compound as rendered obvious by Kyu because the reference of Kyu teaches that the compound can aid in the etch selectivity and etching rate (Paragraphs [0054],[0068]) and one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the desired etching composition using the organophosphorus compound as rendered obvious by Kyu. MPEP 2143D
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE P. DUCLAIR whose telephone number is (571)270-5502. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30 M-F.
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.
/STEPHANIE P DUCLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights