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 received and given careful consideration. The restriction is repeated below and made final. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are obviated by the amendment and/or arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. The rejection based in part upon Xiao et al. 20200278603 has been withdrawn, noting that the material for the layers A and B are all selected from the same group without any direction.
Claims 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1,3,4,6,8,10,11,13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613.
Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613 (machine translation attached) in example 1 describes a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer where the topmost layer is a 11 nm Si protective/capping layer. a 10 nm zirconium silicate buffer layer was then coated on this, a 55 nm In2O3 lower absorber layer and an 8 nm tantalum silicide upper light absorption film. This was then coated with a resist and patterned [0071-0083]. As the material of the buffer film, chromium, chromium oxide, nitride, carbide and a mixture thereof, tantalum, tantalum nitride, carbide, silicide and a mixture thereof, zirconium, zirconium oxide, nitride, silicide and a mixture thereof A mixture, silicon oxide, carbon, etc. can be mentioned [0067]. When a layer containing indium, oxygen, and fluorine is used as the lower-layer absorption film, it is preferable that the upper-layer absorption film has a composition having high transparency at the wavelength of the inspection light in the ultraviolet region. This is because, similarly to the above case, interference between light reflected on the surface of the upper absorption film and light reflected on the interface between the upper absorption film and the lower absorption film is increased, and the antireflection effect is enhanced. A film containing indium, oxygen, and fluorine has a low reflectance at wavelengths in the ultraviolet region unlike metals such as tantalum, so the effect of this interference is not so great. By using a material such as zirconium silicate, the reflectance can be made less than 10% [0068]. The thickness of the absorber layer can be 20-100 nm [0065]. Moreover, the light absorbing layer also includes, in addition to the layer having indium, oxygen, and fluorine, a layer 5 containing at least a kind of element selected from a group consisting of tantalum, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and silicon (abstract)
Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613 does not exemplify the embodiment where the uppermost layer includes V, Co, Ni, Nb or Hf.
With respect to claims 1,3,8,10 and 15, it would have been obvious to modify example 1 by replacing the tantalum silicide layer with a layer of layer of zirconium silicate based upon the disclosure at [0068] that this reduces the reflectance to less than 10% with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask blank and patterned photomask. The examiner holds that the etch rate of zirconium silicate and tantalum silicide is inherently 20 to 100 times that of the In2O3 lower absorber layer for at least some electron beams assisted etch condition (ie some combination of gasses and pressures) as these are different materials.
With respect to claims 1,3-4,8.10-11 and 15, it would have been obvious to modify example 1 by replacing the tantalum silicide layer with a layer of layer of zirconium silicate based upon the disclosure at [0068] that this reduces the reflectance to less than 10 and to reduce the overall thickness of the absorber to between 20-50 nm which is within the range disclosed at [0065] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask blank and patterned photomask. The examiner holds that the etch rate of zirconium silicate and tantalum silicide is inherently 20 to 100 times that of the In2O3 lower absorber layer for at least some electron beams assisted etch condition (ie some combination of gasses and pressures) as these are different materials.
With respect to claims 1,3,6,8,10,13 and 15, it would have been obvious to modify example 1 by replacing the tantalum silicide layer with a layer of layer of zirconium silicate based upon the disclosure at [0068] that this reduces the reflectance to less than 10 and to reduce the thickness of the In2O3 layer to less than 35 nm which is within the range of 20-100 disclosed at [0065] for the thickness of the absorber with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask blank and patterned photomask. The examiner holds that the etch rate of zirconium silicate and tantalum silicide is inherently 20 to 100 times that of the In2O3 lower absorber layer for at least some electron beams assisted etch condition (ie some combination of gasses and pressures) as these are different materials.
In response to the arguments of 11/10/2025, where the applicant argues that the surface roughness is not taught in the references. The examiner holds that the deposited zirconium silicate film would inherently have the recited roughness when formed using sputtering, which is the same deposition technique as used in the instant application. The examiner holds that the etch rate of zirconium silicate and tantalum silicide is inherently 20 to 100 times that of the In2O3 lower absorber layer for at least some electron beams assisted etch condition (ie some combination of gasses and pressures) as these are different materials.
In the response of 2/17/2026, the applicant argues that none of the references teaches the newly recited etch selectivity of 20X to 100X. The examiner holds that the etch rate of zirconium silicate and tantalum silicide is inherently 20 to 100 times that of the In2O3 lower absorber layer for at least some electron beams assisted etch condition (ie some combination of gasses and pressures) as these are different materials. The examiner believes that this is not met for oxygen containing etchants, such as mixtures of oxygen and fluorine-based gasses discussed in the instant specification (see prepub at [0058]) based upon the presence of the silicon in the tantalum silicide and zirconium silicate layers. Additionally, the instant application does not support/evidence the difference in etch selectivity of the layers outside the examples. (see prepub at [0092-0093,0097,0102]).
Claims 1,3,4,6,8,10,11,13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613, in view of Tanabe KR 20190033444
Tanabe KR 20190033444 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 2, the provision of a passivation layer (15) to protect the patterned absorber layer (14) form etching [0050,0099].
PNG
media_image1.png
238
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify the masks rendered obvious by Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613 by adding a protective/passivation layer to protect the patterned absorber from etching as is known in the art from figure 2 and the associated text in Tanabe KR 20190033444 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask.
Claims 1,3,4,6,8,10,11,13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. JP 2007250613, in view of Tanabe KR 20190033444, further in view Komizo et al. WO 2020100632 and/or Goda et al. WO 2020241780.
Komizo et al. WO 2020100632 (machine translation attached) teaches that transition metal contained in the absorption layer 4 is preferably selected from tantalum, gold, osmium, hafnium, tungsten, platinum, iridium, rhenium, and zirconium, which have low reactivity with hydrogen. Moreover, the transition metal contained in the absorption layer 4 may include one kind or two or more kinds of the above-mentioned metals [0030].
Goda et al. WO 2020241780 (machine translation attached) teaches that the absorption layer 4 is formed on the capping layer 3 by sputtering, but the film quality of the absorption layer 4 is changed in order to improve the roughness of the absorption layer pattern, the uniformity of the in-plane dimensions, and the in-plane uniformity of the transferred image. It is preferably sufficiently amorphous. In order to make the film quality of the absorption layer 4 amorphous, the compound material constituting the absorption layer 4 is one selected from boron (B), nitrogen (N), silicon (Si), germanium (Ge), and hafnium (Hf). It is preferable to contain the above elements, and it is more preferable to contain one or more of these elements in an atomic composition ratio of less than 10%.
In addition to the basis above, the examiner points to the teaching in Komizo et al. WO 2020100632 that zirconium has a high resistance to hydrogen (radicals) and the teaching in Goda et al. WO 2020241780 that it is describable to form an amorphous absorption layer and to do this by adding elements such as silicon or hafnium. The formation of the amorphous/non-crystalline will inherently result in low surface roughness.
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 March 10, 2026