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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendment and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments appear after the first rejection they are directed to.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-5,9,11-14,16-20,23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In figure 7B, there are no other patterns adjacent to the target pattern (3) other than the first linear scattering bar (1), the second scattering bar (2) and the connecting segment (4). Figure 7B supports embodiments where there are no other patterns adjacent to the target pattern (3), but does not support embodiments where there may be patterns adjacent to one or more edges of the target pattern (other than the target pattern (3) other than the first linear scattering bar (1), the second scattering bar (2) and the connecting segment (4) ), which is embraced by the language added. The added language also supports the presence of scattering bars which are not linear/straight scattering bars such as those disclosed at [0019] between the first linear scattering bar and the first side, which is not supported by figure 7B.
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 29 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 29 should refer to a projection of the second edge and a projection of the second linear scattering bar not overlapping in the first direction.
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1,3-5,9,11-14,16-20,23,25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 7355673, in view of Laidig et al. 20050074677, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016 and Wang 20100129740
Hsu et al. 7355673 teaches the formation of masks with scattering bars which are sub-resolution features which correct for optical proximity effects by changing/increasing the effective pattern density which increases the overall process window (i.e., the ability to consistently print features having a specified CD regardless of whether or not the features are isolated or densely packed relative to adjacent features) (col 2/line 56-col 3/line 2). An example of the mask pattern in figure 5. (The narrower lines/bars/features are scattering bars). The “A” and circle were added by the examiner to direct the applicant’s attention to the relevant portion of the figure. The circled portion (“A”) includes a printable feature including a step/change in width and 3 adjacent scattering bars. The offset of the lower two scattering bars relative to each other appears to be within their width (ie the projection of the scattering bars in the vertical direction appears to overlap, detail at right). The lowermost scattering bar (first linear scattering bar of the claims) appears to be approximately the same length as the wide portion (first edge of the claims) of the printable feature and the three segments above it are shorter that the narrow width portion (second edge of the claims) of the printable feature. The second scattering bar from the bottom in the detail “A” (and figure 5) is considered to be second first linear scattering bar of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
237
87
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(detail A)
PNG
media_image3.png
420
217
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(detail B)
PNG
media_image4.png
154
57
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Laidig et al. 20050074677 teaches with respect to figure 3 and mask pattern with scattering bars FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary mask layout modified to include scattering bars utilizing the method of the present invention, which is referred to as the "scattering bar extension method". Referring to FIG. 3, the mask layout includes (printable) horizontal features 31 (illustrated as wider features) and (printable) vertical features 32 (illustrated as wider features), which are printed on the substrate, as well as horizontal scattering bars 34 (illustrated as narrower features) and vertical scattering bars 35 (illustrated as narrower features). As noted above, the dimensions of scatterings bars 34 and 35 are such that the scattering bars remain sub-resolution, and do not print on the imaged substrate [0036].
PNG
media_image5.png
648
519
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 12a illustrates the use of the novel chamfer/diagonal scattering bar to connect two parallel scattering bar lines extending in the same direction. In contrast, FIG. 12b illustrates how the such parallel scattering have been connected utilizing prior art techniques. As shown below in FIG. 15B, the use of the angled chamfer to couple scattering bars extending in a parallel direction allows for the overall scattering bar to more closely conform to the edge of the feature to be printed. It is noted that the use of the chamfer of the present invention can be formed with more predictable results as compared to the "corner touching" contacts shown in FIG. 12b, and therefore exhibits reduced issues associated with die-to-data base inspection [0046].
PNG
media_image6.png
346
428
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
746
442
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 12B represents the connection of scattering bars in the prior art and figure 12A teaches the chamfering technique where an approximately 45 degrees connecting segment is used to connect. The use of the angled chamfer allows the scattering bar to more closely conform to the edge of the feature to be printed and the arrangement of the scattering bars can be more predictably formed than the corner touching of the prior art (reducing die to die variation) [0046]. The use of the chambering may also be used to reduce the area of the scattering bars relative to scattering bars connected by right angles [0045].
Kobayashi et al. 20030126582 in figure 5D (see immediately below) or 5C or 8C
PNG
media_image8.png
138
344
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
229
432
media_image9.png
Greyscale
A printable pattern where the thickness is different at different ends (one end is longer than the other) and there is a segmented scattering bar adjacent the stepped surface, but does not teach the small offset of the scattering bars required by the claims. Kobayashi et al. 20030126582 teaches a feature to be printed where one side is stepped but the other are not (figures 4C) and the OPC (27) [0046-0048]. Figure 4C connects the steps with 90 degree angles. The step difference is based upon design data [0074]. The evaluation of the OPC corrected pattern based upon design rules is disclosed [0073,0075-0077,0083-0092,0097-0100,0127]
Wang 20100129740 in figure 6 illustrates a series of wide test lines (201,301) which are printed and thin assist lines (302) which follow them.
PNG
media_image10.png
295
338
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lucas et al. 20040248016 illustrates in figure 10, parallel linear segments (149,151,153) which are offset from each other and connected by angled segments ((161,159) [0041-0042]. The use of the photomask/reticle in exposing a resist, which is then developed is disclosed [0027]. Designing the layout of the “target” pattern including the sub-resolution features and using this to form a layout file. The layout file can then be transferred to a reticle/mask fabrication tool such as an electron beam writer, which is then processes to have the desired “target” pattern [0026-0027]. FIG. 10 is an illustrative view of the target design of FIG. 4 having an improved subresolution assist feature formed according to another embodiment of the present disclosure;
PNG
media_image11.png
146
234
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
205
309
media_image12.png
Greyscale
FIG. 9 is an illustrative view of the target design of FIG. 3 having an improved subresolution assist feature formed according to one embodiment of the present disclosure;
PNG
media_image13.png
216
266
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
196
253
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Hsu et al. 7355673 in figure 5 exemplifies all of the embodiments of the target pattern having an “L” shape (a first edge, a (adjacent) first side, a (offset) second edge, a (shorter) second side) where the offset of the scattering bars is less than their width, but does not exemplify or teach a connecting bar segment connecting the two lower scattering bar segments or scattering bar segment which is longer than the associated face segment
With respect to claims 1,3-5,9,11-14,16,23,25 and 29, it would have been obvious to modify the mask pattern of identified as detail B of figure 5 of Hsu et al. 7355673 by forming a sloped step in the manner of figure 5D, rather than figure 4C of Kobayashi et al. 20030126582
and connecting the scattering bar segments with an angled scattering bar as taught in figures 12A of Laidig et al. 20050074677 which is described as more desirable that the prior technique illustrated in figure 12B, Wang 20100129740 and figures 9 and 10 of Lucas et al. 20040248016 which are described as improvements over the sub-resolution features of figurers 3 and 10 (respectively) where the target pattern can be isolated from other patterned as in figures 10 of Lucas et al. 20040248016 and to adjust the length of the longer assist feature so that it is longer or shorter than the associated feature based upon the design desired as is known in the art from figure 15A of Laidig et al. 20050074677 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask pattern, based upon the prior use of angled connecting segments in the scattering/assist bars of the prior art as evidenced in Wang 20100129740 and Lucas et al. 20040248016 including the figures preproduced above
The examiner points out that perfectly square patterns are not achievable, so the illustrated rectangles of the printable features and the scattering bars are actually rounded at the corners. The sub-resolution widths of the scattering bars will suffer more from this rounding, due to their minute dimensions. The angles observed are dependent upon the measurement. For a 45 degree connecting segment, the measurement along one side of the connecting segment and the linear scattering bar will be 45 degrees (less than 180 degrees) while the measurement along the other/second side of the connecting segments and the same linear scattering bar will be 225 degrees (180 +45).
The embodiments where the step of the edge is a 90 degree angle and the connecting segments makes an oblique angle with the scattering bars is more unusual. Figure 10 of Lucas et al. 20040248016 (reproduced above) shows a linear face with a segmented assist feature. If the applicant submitted declaration evidence that this embodiment yielded unexpected results commensurate with the scope of the claims, the examiner would review it. There also may be arguments coupling the teaching in Laidig et al. 20050074677 of the use of the chamfered/angled scattering patterns to match the adjacent edges as a teaching away and from the embodiments which are illustrated in the instant application, but not explicitly claims. The resolution and mode (resolution and stepping/scanning) of exposure of the e-beam writer of the instant specification may also be added to these arguments. Clearly the 90 degree linear step connecting the first and second edges is supported, the improvement in the print out of the image (prepub at [0003]) and the angled connecting segment when the spacing SP1 is more than zero. This issue is where support might be in the specification for excluding a 90 degree angle between the linear scattering bars and the connecting segment.
In the response of 4/2/2026, the applicant argues that Hsu et al. does not teach a portion where the edge associated with a scattering feature is longer than the scattering feature (the edge does not overlap with the scattering strip). The examiner points out that detail A teaches multiple, short scattering bars associated with an edge feature, as does figure 10 of Lucas and figure 3 of Laidig et al. 20050074677 (see detail with the “F” of FIG for easier location in figure 3)
PNG
media_image15.png
148
35
media_image15.png
Greyscale
. The adjustment of the length of scattering features which do not print out to an appropriate length to optimize the printout of the target feature is well within the scope of “design choice” of one skilled in this art based upon the desired pattern and any other desired features adjacent to it. If the applicant intends to rely upon this as a showing of unobviousness, the examiner expects to see an evidentiary showing beyond that of Laidig et al. 20050074677 and Lucas et al. 20040248016 commensurate in scope with the coverage sought.
Claims 1,3-5,9,11-16,22-25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 7355673, in view of Laidig et al. 20050074677, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016 and Wang 20100129740, further in view of Lavin et al. 20050153212
Lavin et al. 20050153212 teaches that mask manufacturing rules may decide the following items: a) the minimum area of each SRAF; b) the minimum width of each SRAF; c) the minimum length of each SRAF; and d) the minimum distance between an SRAF and a main feature or another SRAF: The distance can be characterized by design rule checking (DRC) directives. Some examples of DRC directives are: corner-to-corner checks and end-to-end checks [0009].
In addition to the basis above, it would have been obvious to modify the embodiments rendered obvious by the combination of Hsu et al. 7355673, Laidig et al. 20050074677, Lucas et al. 20040248016, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582 and Wang 20100129740 by applying design rules regarding the length of the scattering bars and their precise placement appropriate to the exposure system and design requirements of the resulting device as taught by Lavin et al. 20050153212 with a reasonable expectation of producing a useful photomask with scattering bars.
Claims 1,3-5,9,11-14,16-20,23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 7355673, in view of Laidig et al. 20050074677, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016, Wang 20100129740 and Lavin et al. 20050153212, further in view of Zhang et al 20060190919
Zhang et al 20060190919 teaches the use of assist features with differing widths [0047] and claims 7,71523,26,34,38,39,44 and 46.
The combination of Hsu et al. 7355673, Laidig et al. 20050074677, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016, Wang 20100129740 and Lavin et al. 20050153212 does not teach the use of assist features/scattering bars with different widths in the same photomask pattern.
In addition to the basis above, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to modify the masks and methods of masking them rendered obvious by the combination of Hsu et al. 7355673, Laidig et al. 20050074677, Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016, Wang 20100129740 and Lavin et al. 20050153212 by using scattering bars/assist features which have different widths as is known in the art from Zhang et al 20060190919 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-20 and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11209728, in view of Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, Lucas et al. 20040248016 and Hsu et al. 7355673
In U.S. Patent No. 11209728
Claim 1 recites: A method for fabricating a mask, comprising: obtaining a target pattern to be imaged onto a substrate; providing a first scattering bar and a second scattering bar adjacent to consecutive edges of the target pattern, wherein the second scattering bar is not aligned with the first scattering bar along a longitudinal direction of the first scattering bar; identifying a first length of the first scattering bar and a second length of the second scattering bar; connecting the first scattering bar and the second scattering bar when any of the first length and the second length is smaller than a predetermined value; identifying a separation between the first scattering bar and the second scattering bar subsequent to identifying the first length and the second length; disposing the first scattering bar and the second scattering bar in a first fashion when the separation is equal to zero; and disposing the first scattering bar and the second scattering bar in a second fashion when the separation is greater than zero.
Claim 3 recites: The method of claim 1, wherein disposing the first scattering bar and the second scattering bar in a second fashion comprises comparing the separation with one-half of the scattering bar width.
The claims of U.S. Patent No. 11209728 do not recite using an electron beam to write the mask pattern, determining if the sum of the length of the first, scattering bar, the second scattering bar and the connecting segment is equal or greater than the total scattering bar length for the corresponding technology node or the relative lengths of the scattering bars to the respective edges of the target pattern.
It would have been obvious to modify the claims by using “L” shaped target features as in detail B in figure 5 of Hsu et al. 7355673 with sloped steps similar to figure of 5D of Kobayashi et al. 20030126582, determining of the assist features meet the design rule as taught by Kobayashi et al. 20030126582 and adjusting the length of the assist features/scattering bars so they are shorter or longer than the associated edge accounting for the presence or absence of other features as is within the design choices available to those skilled in the art for the sub-resolution scattering features which do not printout and using an electron beam to write the mask pattern as taught by Lucas et al. 20040248016 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaCour 20030014731 illustrates in figure 3, the leftmost pattern, having a series of faces (302,316,306) along one edge and a series of linear assist features associated with it. These assist features vary in width.
PNG
media_image16.png
428
410
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Mark F Huff can be reached on 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights