DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0088492) in view of KIM et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0079999) and BILODEAU et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0197746).
With regards to claim 1, Liu discloses an etchant composition for etching a silicon germanium film, the etchant composition comprising: about 1 to about 5 wt% of an oxidant (Paragraphs [0033]-[0035]) which falls within Applicant’s about 5 wt% to about 14 wt% of an oxidant, based on a total weight of the etchant composition; about 0.025 to about 5% by weight of a fluorine compound (Paragraphs [0036]-[0038]) which falls within Applicant’s 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% of a fluorine compound, based on the total weight of the etchant composition; about 0.6 to about 5 wt% if an amine compound (Paragraphs [0058]-[0061]) which falls within Applicant’s about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% of an amine compound, based on the total weight of the etchant composition; and a balance of water (Paragraph [0029]). 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)
Liu does not explicitly disclose about 0.01 wt% to about 1 wt% of an alcohol compound having a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail, based on the total weight of the etchant composition and 60 wt% to about 90 wt% of an organic solvent, based on the total weight of the etchant composition.
Kim discloses a composition for selectively removal silicon germanium comprising an oxidizing species (Paragraph [0024]-[0025]); a fluorine compound (Paragraph [0026]), an amine compound(Paragraph [0031]) and an organic solvent (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).Liu discloses a water miscible organic solvent comprising alcohols, diols and mixture thereof wherein the total amount is from 0.5 to 80 wt% (Paragraphs [0040]-[0043]). Bilodeau discloses wherein the diols can comprise species such as hexanediol and octanediol (Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). As such Liu as modified by Kim and Bilodeau discloses an etchant composition comprising an alcohol compound having a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail and an organic solvent wherein the solvents may be present in a total amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 80 wt% (Liu Paragraphs [0040]-[0043], Kim [0025]-[0026], Bilodeau Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]); wherein the concentration of the organic solvent may control the rate of forming fluorine atoms from a fluorine compound and etching selectivity (Kim Paragraph [0033]) and the diol may be present in amounts as low at 0.001 wt% (Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]) rendering obvious about 0.01 wt% to about 1 wt% of an alcohol compound having a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail, based on the total weight of the etchant composition and 60 wt% to about 90 wt% of an organic solvent, based on the total weight of the etchant 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 one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composition of Liu to include the alcohol component (diol) of Bilodeau because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictable achieving the desired polishing using the alcohol component as rendered obvious by Bilodeau. MPEP 2143D
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 modify the composition of Liu to include the organic solvent of Kim because one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would have had a reasonable expectation of predictable achieving the desired polishing using the organic solvent as rendered obvious by Kim. MPEP 2143D
With regards to claim 2, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the oxidant includes a C1-C6 carboxylic acid compound, a C1-C6 peroxyacid compound, or a combination thereof. (Liu Paragraph [0033] discloses peroxy acid including peracetic acid).
With regards to claim 3, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the fluorine compound includes hydrofluoric acid (HF), sodium fluoride (NaF), potassium fluoride (KF), aluminum fluoride (AlF3), lithium fluoride (LiF), calcium fluoride (CaF2), ammonium fluoride (NH4F), ammonium difluoride (NH4HF2), tetramethylammonium fluoride ((CH3)4NF), potassium bifluoride (KHF2), fluoroboric acid (HBF4), ammoniumtetrafluoroborate (NH4BF4), potassium fluoroborate (KBF4), hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), or a combination thereof. (Liu Paragraph [0036])
With regards to claim 4, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the amine compound is selected from a C1-C8 aliphatic amine compound and a 5- to 8-membered cyclic amine (Kim Paragraph [0029]).
With regards to claim 5, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the alcohol compound includes a polyhydric alcohol having a C8-C16 normal alkyl group and at least two hydroxyl groups. (Bilodeau Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
With regards to claim 6, the modified teachings of Liu render obvious wherein the organic solvent includes a Cl-C5 carboxylic acid compound. (Kim Paragraph [0032]).
With regards to claim 7, the modified teachings of Liu renders obvious the composition further comprising about 0.1 wt% (Kim Paragraphs [0024]-[0025] discloses aging catalyst used to form peracetic acid which remains in the etching composition wherein the volume ratio of acetic acid to catalyst is 33:01 to 33:10) which renders obvious about 0.01 wt% to about 5 wt% of a catalyst, based on the total weight of the etchant composition, wherein the catalyst includes sulfuric acid or methanesulfonic acid (Kim Paragraphs [0025]).
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