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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains two paragraphs. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ge et al. (US-20190284704-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ge teaches an etching method (Paragraph [0008] composition for etching taught. Paragraph [0018] compositions and methods for use taught) comprising:
etching a layer to be etched that contains molybdenum (Paragraph [0018] method can be used for etching tungsten-containing materials. Paragraph [0021] molybdenum-tungsten alloy can be the tungsten-containing material etched) with an etchant composition that contains a nitric acid (Paragraph [0028] composition includes oxidizer, that can be nitric acid), a polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more (Paragraph [0052] composition can include a corrosion inhibitor. Paragraph [0063] the corrosion inhibitor can be a polyethyleneimine with an average molecular weight of about 800, a nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300 (Paragraph [0032] the composition can include a solvent that can be hexyloxypropylamine which has a molecular weight of 159 and can be considered basic, see reference Document "Hexyloxypropylamine - Chemical Book"), and water (Paragraph [0026] composition includes water).
Regarding Claim 8, Ge further teaches wherein the etchant composition further contains an acid other than the nitric acid (Paragraph [0029] the oxidizer can comprise one or more oxidizers, example provided where phosphoric acid and nitric acid are used together).
Regarding Claim 9, Ge further teaches wherein the acid other than the nitric acid is at least one selected from the group consisting of phosphoric acid, acetic acid, methoxyacetic acid, and ethoxyacetic acid (Paragraph [0029] the oxidizer can comprise one or more oxidizers, example provided where phosphoric acid and nitric acid are used together. Paragraph [0033] the solvent can comprise one or more solvents and acetic acid can be used as a solvent).
Regarding Claim 10, Ge further teaches wherein the polyamine is at least one selected from the group consisting of polyalkyleneimine and a polymer with a constitutional unit derived from a compound having amino groups and an ethylenically unsaturated double bond (Paragraph [0052] composition can include a corrosion inhibitor. Paragraph [0063] the corrosion inhibitor can be a polyethyleneimine, which is a polyalkyleneimine).
Regarding Claim 11, Ge further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing basic compound is at least one selected from the group consisting of ammonia, alkylamine, alkanolamine, alicyclic amine, aromatic amine, and polyalkylene polyamine (Paragraph [0032] the composition can include a solvent that can be hexyloxypropylamine which can be considered an alkylamine).
Regarding Claim 12, Ge further teaches wherein the etching method is used to etch metal in a manufacturing process of a semiconductor wafer (Paragraph [0018] method can be used for etching tungsten-containing materials. Paragraph [0021] molybdenum-tungsten alloy can be the tungsten-containing material etched. Paragraph [0008] method can be used in the manufacture of a microelectronic device).
Regarding Claim 13, Ge teaches an etching method (Paragraph [0008] composition for etching taught. Paragraph [0018] compositions and methods for use taught) comprising:
etching a layer to be etched that contains molybdenum (Paragraph [0018] method can be used for etching tungsten-containing materials. Paragraph [0021] molybdenum-tungsten alloy can be the tungsten-containing material etched) with an etchant composition that is provided by blending a nitric acid (Paragraph [0028] composition includes oxidizer, that can be nitric acid), a polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more (Paragraph [0052] composition can include a corrosion inhibitor. Paragraph [0063] the corrosion inhibitor can be a polyethyleneimine with an average molecular weight of about 800), a nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300 (Paragraph [0032] the composition can include a solvent that can be hexyloxypropylamine which has a molecular weight of 159 and can be considered basic, see reference Document "Hexyloxypropylamine - Chemical Book"), and water (Paragraph [0026] composition includes water).
The following Regarding Claim 14, Ge teaches an etchant composition (Paragraph [0008] composition for etching taught) for etching of a layer to be etched that contains molybdenum (The preamble ") for etching of a layer to be etched that contains molybdenum" is a statement of intended use that does not further limit the claimed invention. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114. Since the structure of the prior art teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the structure is considered capable of meeting the intended use limitations. However, for purposes of compact prosecution, examiner notes that Ge expressly teaches a method of using the taught composition for etching a layer that contains molybdenum: Paragraph [0018] method can be used for etching tungsten-containing materials. Paragraph [0021] molybdenum-tungsten alloy can be the tungsten-containing material etched),
the etchant composition comprising a nitric acid (Paragraph [0028] composition includes oxidizer, that can be nitric acid), a polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more (Paragraph [0052] composition can include a corrosion inhibitor. Paragraph [0063] the corrosion inhibitor can be a polyethyleneimine with an average molecular weight of about 800), a nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300 (Paragraph [0032] the composition can include a solvent that can be hexyloxypropylamine which has a molecular weight of 159 and can be considered basic, see reference Document "Hexyloxypropylamine - Chemical Book"), and water (Paragraph [0026] composition includes water).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge.
Regarding Claim 7, Ge teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as outlined above.
Ge fails to explicitly teach wherein a, b, and c satisfy (a - c)4/b<=600, where a represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the nitric acid, b represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more, and c represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300.
However, Ge teaches that the oxidizer can be include at 0.5-60% by mass (Paragraph [0029], where as outlined above the oxidizer can be considered equivalent to the claimed “nitric acid”), the corrosion inhibitor can be included at 0.000001-5% by mass (Paragraph [0064] where as outlined above the corrosion inhibitor can be considered equivalent to the claimed “polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more”), and that ] the solvent is included at 0.00001-70% by mass (Paragraph [0036] where as outlined above the solvent can be considered equivalent to the claimed “nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300”).
Based on these teachings, it can be calculated that Ge teaches that the value for the claimed equation can equal any number from 0 to 1.296x1013 (the lower limit of this range will occur at any point where the % by mass of oxidizer and solvent are equal. The upper limit of this range can be calculated by using 60 for a, 0.000001 for b, and 0.00001 for c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the oxidizer, corrosion inhibitor, and solvent at levels taught such that the claimed formula results in values within the range of 0 to 1.296x1013, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than or equal to 600. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 15, Ge teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as outlined above.
Ge fails to explicitly teach wherein a, b, and c satisfy (a - c)4/b<=600, where a represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the nitric acid, b represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more, and c represents a blending amount (% by mass) of the nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300.
However, Ge teaches that the oxidizer can be include at 0.5-60% by mass (Paragraph [0029], where as outlined above the oxidizer can be considered equivalent to the claimed “nitric acid”), the corrosion inhibitor can be included at 0.000001-5% by mass (Paragraph [0064] where as outlined above the corrosion inhibitor can be considered equivalent to the claimed “polyamine with a number average molecular weight of 300 or more”), and that ] the solvent is included at 0.00001-70% by mass (Paragraph [0036] where as outlined above the solvent can be considered equivalent to the claimed “nitrogen-containing basic compound with a molecular weight of less than 300”).
Based on these teachings, it can be calculated that Ge teaches that the value for the claimed equation can equal any number from 0 to 1.296x1013 (the lower limit of this range will occur at any point where the % by mass of oxidizer and solvent are equal. The upper limit of this range can be calculated by using 60 for a, 0.000001 for b, and 0.00001 for c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated the oxidizer, corrosion inhibitor, and solvent at levels taught such that the claimed formula results in values within the range of 0 to 1.296x1013, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of less than or equal to 600. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
