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 .
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) 1-9, 11, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bjelopavlic (US 2023/0274946A1).
With respect to claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 15 Bjelopavlic describes an etching composition comprising: water, an alkaline compound of TMAH, up to 1000ppm or 0.1 wt% of metal salt, at least one of 8-aminoquinoline, 8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, 8-quinolinethiol, 2,8-quinolinediol, 8-quinolinylacetic acid, 8-quinolinesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-8-quinolinol, 5-hydroxyquinoline, or 6-hydroxyquinolinea mercapto-containing acid, which provides claimed a nitrogen-containing fused ring compound comprising a fused structure of a nitrogen-containing ring to which a polar functional group is bonded and a nitrogen-free ring and at a content of at least about 0.05wt% and at most about 3wt% (para 8, 14, 19).
With respect to claims 2-7, the 2,8-quinolinediol, which is the same compound as that of claimed invention as cited in paragraph 124 of the instant specification; therefore, it would provide claimed nitrogen-containing fused ring compound represented by the formula in claims 2-7.
With respect to claim 16, the TMAH is from 0.1 to 10 wt% (para 15).
With respect to claims 17-19, Bjelopavlic further teaches etching silicon in the present of hard masks such as SiOx and SiN in the process of forming multigate pattern, which would include the steps of forming silicon protective film or etching mask on the silicon for the patterning process of the silicon (para 2-4, 6, 7).
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Osamu et al. (PH 12010501361B1).
With respect to claims 1, 15 Osamu describes an etching composition comprising: water; (page 11), at least one of an alkaline compound of TMAH and sodium hydroxide, which provides a metal salt (page 5); anticorrosive agent such as quinaldic acid, which is the same nitrogen-containing fused ring compound cited in paragraph 124 of the instant application (page 7).
With respect to claims 2-7, the quinaldic acid, which is the same compound as that of claimed invention as cited in paragraph 124 of the instant specification; therefore, it would provide claimed nitrogen-containing fused ring compound represented by the formula in claims 2-7.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the anticorrosive agent including quinaldic acid is from 0.05 to 5 wt% (page 8).
With respect to claims 11, 16, the content of inorganic alkali including sodium hydroxide or metal salt is and TMAH or alkaline compound is from 0.5 to 10 wt% (page 5).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjelopavlic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roh et al. (US 2022/0073819A1).
With respect to claims 10 and 12, Bjelopavlic doesn’t teach that the metal salt comprising a first metal salt selecting from a transition metal, a post-transition metal and a metalloid, and a second metal salt selecting from an alkali metal or an alkaline earth metal. Roh teaches a silicon etching composition that comprises metal salt selecting from transition metal and post-transition metal (para 39) and inorganic hydroxide such as lithium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, rubidium hydroxide, cesium hydroxide, francium hydroxide (para 31), which provides claimed second metal salt selecting from a salt of alkali metal or alkaline earth metal. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of Roh’s teaching, to have metal salt selecting form a transition and post-transition metal and metal salt selecting from alkali and alkaline earth metal because Roh teaches they provide a silicon etching composition that improves etch rate of the composition and corrosion resistance to the silicon oxide film (para 28, 37).
With respect to claims 13 and 14, Roh teaches the transition metal or post-transition metal salt is from 0.01 to 1.5 wt% and the inorganic hydroxide is from 1-15 wt% (para 35, 43), which overlap claimed ranges of the first and second metal salt and would provide a ratio between the metal salt to that of the nitrogen-containing fused ring compound overlap claimed 0.0005 to 10. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use a ratio between the metal salt and the nitrogen-containing fused ring compound range including claimed ranges to provide an etching composition with expected results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osamu.
With respect to claim 14, even though Osamu doesn’t teach a ratio of a content of the metal salt to a content of the nitrogen-containing fused ring compound in a total weight of the composition is 0.0005 to 10. However, the contents of the metal salt, such as sodium hydroxide and quinaldic acid are 0.5-10 wt% and 0.05 to 5 wt% respectively, which would provide a ratio that overlaps of claimed ratio. Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use a ratio between the metal salt and the nitrogen-containing fused ring compound range including claimed ranges to provide an etching composition with expected results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
9/16/2026
Prosecution Insights