DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIKKAWA et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0328320).
With regards to claim 1, Kikkawa discloses a semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (i) at least one selected from the group consisting of hypochlorous acid, hypobromous acid and ions thereon (Paragraphs [0069], [0093], [0171and(iii) an onium ion (Paragraph [0147]).
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose a semiconductor treatment liquid for removing ruthenium silicide from a substrate containing ruthenium silicide, the semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (ii) at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen fluoride and a fluoride ion.
Kikkawa discloses treating a transition metal including ruthenium, wherein the metal may be an alloy of a transition metal including ruthenium; where the metal is a silicide of the metal (Paragraphs [0056], [0062]) and wherein the treatment liquid comprises a halogen containing solution wherein the halogen comprises fluorine (Paragraph [0170]) which renders obvious a semiconductor treatment liquid for removing ruthenium silicide from a substrate containing ruthenium silicide, the semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (ii) at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen fluoride and a fluoride ion.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Kikkawa to include the ruthenium silicide and fluoride ions as rendered obvious by Kikkawa because the reference of Kikkawa discloses the inclusion of the halogen additive forms a halogen oxyacid which provides a stable etching composition for transition metals (Paragraph [0189]) 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 treatment liquid using the fluoride halogen source as rendered obvious by Kikkawa. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein the component (i) is at least one selected from the group consisting of hypochlorous acid and a hypochlorite ion. (Paragraphs [0090], [0093]).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein a total concentration of the component (i) in the semiconductor treatment liquid is preferably 0.1 µmol/L or more and 4 mol/L or less (Paragraph [0090]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amounts of 0.001 mol/L to 0.50 mol/L in terms of halogen element content. 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 4, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein the halogen fluorine containing source is present in amounts sufficient to form the halogen oxyacid in the composition (Paragraph [0170]) in order to provide a treatment liquid with a sufficient etching rate that maintains flatness of the transition metal (Paragraph [0189]). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of the fluoride source to amounts including Applicant’s claimed amount of 0.001 mol/L to 10.0 mol/L in order to provide the halogen fluorine containing source in amounts sufficient to form the halogen oxyacid in the composition (Paragraph [0170]) in order to provide a treatment liquid with a sufficient etching rate that maintains flatness of the transition metal (Paragraph [0189]) as taught by the modified teachings of Kikkawa. (Paragraphs [0170], [0186] MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein a total concentration of the component (iii) in the semiconductor treatment liquid is 0.1 µmol/L to 0.001 mol/L (Paragraph [0149]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of 0.001 mol/L to 10.0 mol/L. 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 6, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein the semiconductor treatment liquid has a pH from 7-14 (Paragraph [0167]) which overlaps Applicant’s claimed amount of pH of 0.0 to 10.0 at 25°C. 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 7, the modified teachings of Kikkawa render obvious wherein the component (iii) is an onium ion represented by claims Formula (1) (Paragraph [0152]).
With regards to claim 8, Kikkawa a method of manufacturing a semiconductor element, the method comprising brining a substrate containing a transition metal into contact with a semiconductor treatment liquid, the semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (i) at least one selected from the group consisting of hypochlorous acid, hypobromous acid and ions thereon (Paragraphs [0069], [0093], [0171and(iii) an onium ion (Paragraph [0147]).
Kikkawa does not explicitly disclose a semiconductor treatment liquid for removing ruthenium silicide from a substrate containing ruthenium silicide, the semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (ii) at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen fluoride and a fluoride ion.
Kikkawa discloses treating a transition metal including ruthenium, wherein the metal may be an alloy of a transition metal including ruthenium; where the metal is a silicide of the metal (Paragraphs [0056], [0062]) and wherein the treatment liquid comprises a halogen containing solution wherein the halogen comprises fluorine (Paragraph [0170]) which renders obvious a semiconductor treatment liquid for removing ruthenium silicide from a substrate containing ruthenium silicide, the semiconductor treatment liquid comprising (ii) at least one selected from the group consisting of hydrogen fluoride and a fluoride ion.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Kikkawa to include the ruthenium silicide and fluoride ions as rendered obvious by Kikkawa because the reference of Kikkawa discloses the inclusion of the halogen additive forms a halogen oxyacid which provides a stable etching composition for transition metals (Paragraph [0189]) 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 treatment liquid using the fluoride halogen source as rendered obvious by Kikkawa. MPEP 2143D
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kraus et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0123235).
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