CTNF 17/794,202 CTNF 99454 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukugami (WO 2019/009211, equivalent document US 2020/0159106 used in lieu of English translation, IDS07/20/2022) in view of Goto (US Patent No. 5,523,185) . Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Fukugami teaches a reflective photomask blank (Claim 1) for producing a reflective photomask (Claim 9) for pattern transfer that uses light with a wavelength of an extreme ultraviolet region as a light source, the reflective photomask blank including: a substrate; a reflective layer formed on the substrate; and a light absorbing layer formed on the reflective layer (paragraph [0011]). The light absorbing layer includes a tin oxide film with an atomic ratio (O/Sn) of oxygen (O) to tin (Sn) being more than 1.50 and equal to or less than 2.0, and with a film thickness of 25 nm or more and 45 nm or less (paragraph [0011]). Advantages of the present invention include that the shadowing effect of a reflective photomask for pattern transfer using extreme ultraviolet light as a light source is suppressed or reduced to improve the performance of transfer to a semiconductor substrate, and that the cleaning resistance of a light absorbing layer is improved (paragraph [0013]). Fig. 1 shows the reflective mask blank and Fig. 2 shows the patterned reflective photomask. Table 1 shows that at an O/Sn ratio of 1.51, the film loss of the tin oxide to SPM is not observed (paragraph [0045]). Here, Examiner notes that Fukugami is disclosing an oxygen deficiency ratio, evidenced by the formula disclosed in the instant specification paragraph [0033], [OI-OR]/OI wherein OI is an ideal oxygen content where Sn Ta and Nb are in a stoichiometrically stable oxide state (SnO 2 , Ta 2 O 5 , Nb 2 O 5 ) and OR is an oxygen content of an absorber film. The O/Sn ratio of 1.51 imparts an oxygen deficiency ratio of the tin oxide film of 0.104 using the calculation disclosed above. This is outside the instantly claimed range of 0.15 or more and 0.28 or less. However, Fukugami further discloses that components other than tin and oxygen contained in the tin oxide film show very small reduction in EUV absorbance and performance when that component is less than 20 atomic percent (paragraph [0079]). As a material other than tin and oxygen, a metal such as Si, In, Te, Ta, Pt, Cr, or Ru, or a light element such as nitrogen or carbon may be mixed (paragraph [0080]). For example, the oxygen deficiency may be recalculated for the incorporation of 20 atomic percent into both a SnO 2 and SnO 1.51 absorber film; the oxygen deficiency ratio after incorporating 20 atomic percent of metallic Ta is 0.211 for SnO 2 80%/Ta 20% and 0.288 for SnO 1.51 80%/Ta 20%. If 10 atomic percent of Ta was incorporated, the oxygen deficiency ratio is 0.106 for SnO 2 90%/Ta 10% and 0.199 for SnO 1.51 90%/Ta 10%. Thus, Fukugami discloses embodiments that contain other metallic elements up to atomic percent that have an oxygen deficiency ratio between 0 for SnO 2 film to 0.288 for SnO 1.51 80%/Ta 20% film. Thus, Fukigami discloses a range of oxygen deficiency in the disclosed embodiments that fully overlaps the claimed range. 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). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding the oxygen deficiency, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the tin oxide films of Fukugami with up to 20 atomic percent of a metal such as Ta based on the disclosure therein. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification since the tin oxide film show very small reduction in EUV absorbance and performance when that component is less than 20 atomic percent as suggested by Fukugami. Fukugami further teaches in Fig. 3 the optical constants of metal materials at the wavelength of the EUV region, which includes Nb, niobium and suggests that metals may be incorporated up to 20 atomic percent in the tin oxide films (paragraph [0079]). Therefore, the properties of Niobium are known and one of ordinary skill would understand how incorporating these elements would affect the properties of a resulting absorber layer. Fukugami still is silent to the absorber composition explicitly comprising niobium. However, Goto teaches a method of manufacturing a stencil last in which precise patterning and a sufficient thickness of the absorber film are ensured (abstract). Goto discloses as a material for the absorber film metals other than Au may be used, such as Pt, W, Ta , Re, Nb , Mo, Ag, In, Sn , Ti, Cu, Ni, Cr, Al and Fe (Col 7 Ln 65 to Col 8 Ln 12). As seen by the disclosure of Goto, niobium Nb is a candidate metal for the absorber layers therein, same with Ta and Sn. Fukugami and Goto both disclose compositions and methods for making absorber layers for photomasks. Goto further discloses that Ta, Nb, and Sn are compatible metals for absorber layers. Fukugami and Goto do not show a specific example of a resist composition combining Sn, Nb, Ta, and O in one single example. However, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven , 205 USPQ 1069 1072. In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a composition comprising an oxygen deficient tin oxide layer with additional metals of tantalum and niobium and arrive at the instant claims through routine experimentation. Regarding Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 are relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses that only up to 20 atomic percent of the tin oxide film may be another element, so tin will be the metal element with the highest content (paragraph [0079]). Furthermore, oxygen will always comprise the largest content in any of the corresponding tin oxide films, since there is always more oxygen than tin based on the O/Sn ratios between 2 to 1.51 (paragraph [0011]). Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 is relied upon as above. Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise tantalum as an additional metal (paragraph [0079]). Further, Fukugami discloses in Fig. 3 the optical properties of metals with respect to EUV such that one of ordinary skill would understand the effect of each metal on the overall properties of the absorber layer; Fig. 3 discloses niobium as a metal. Goto further discloses metals for absorber films may comprise Pt, W, Ta , Re, Nb , Mo, Ag, In, Sn , Ti, Cu, Ni, Cr, Al and Fe (Col 7 Ln 65 to Col 8 Ln 12). Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise additional metals and Goto discloses other metals that are compatible as absorber layers. The modification of the tin oxide films with Ta and Nb would result in a film comprising only Sn, Ta,Nb, and O as instantly claimed. Regarding Claims 5 and 13, the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 are relied upon as above. Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise tantalum as an additional metal up to 20 atomic percent (paragraph [0079]). The oxygen contents of these films may be calculated. SnO 1.51 80% / Ta/Nb 20% would comprise an oxygen content is 0.481 and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.288; SnO 2 80%/TaNb 20% would comprise an oxygen content of 53.33% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.211. SnO 1.51 90% / Ta/Nb 10% would comprise an oxygen content is 53.7% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.198; SnO 2 90%/TaNb 10% would comprise an oxygen content of 60% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.106. Therefore, the compositions disclosed in Fukugami and modified in view of Goto comprise an oxygen content ranging from 48.1% to at least 60% using the O/Sn content of 1.51 and 2.0. 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). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compositions of Fukugami based on the disclosure to have a O/Sn ratio in the range of 1.51 to 2 and to have additional metals in the composition in the range of 0 to 20 atomic percent. In doing so, these modifications would overlap the claimed total oxygen content of 50 atomic percent or more. Regarding Claims 6 and 14, the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 are relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses that the extinction coefficient for EUV hardly differ between tin oxide with an O/Sn ratio of 1.5 to 2.0 and values were obtained for each of the samples such that refractive index n=0.930 to 0.935 and extinction coefficient k=0.0714 to 0.0721 (paragraph [0048-0049]). Regarding Claims 7 and 15, the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 are relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses that tin oxide has a film thickness of 25 nm or more and 45 nm or less (paragraph [0011]). Regarding Claims 8 and 16, the discussion of Claims 1 and 9 are relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses that a capping layer 3 is formed on the reflective layer 2 ( paragraph [0030]) and that the capping layer is a protective layer (paragraph [0052]). Regarding Claim 17, the photomask of Claim 9 is relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses it can be expected that the shadowing effect of a reflective photomask for pattern transfer using extreme ultraviolet light as a light source is suppressed or reduced to improve the performance of transfer to a semiconductor substrate, indicating the mask’s use in a methos of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the step of transferring a transfer pattern to a resist film on a semiconductor substrate by exposure (paragraph [0013]). Regarding Claim 18, the discussion of Claim 11 is relied upon as above. Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise tantalum as an additional metal (paragraph [0079]). Further, Fukugami discloses in Fig. 3 the optical properties of metals with respect to EUV such that one of ordinary skill would understand the effect of each metal on the overall properties of the absorber layer; Fig. 3 discloses niobium as a metal. Goto further discloses metals for absorber films may comprise Pt, W, Ta , Re, Nb , Mo, Ag, In, Sn , Ti, Cu, Ni, Cr, Al and Fe (Col 7 Ln 65 to Col 8 Ln 12). Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise additional metals and Goto discloses other metals that are compatible as absorber layers. The modification of the tin oxide films with Ta and Nb would result in a film comprising only Sn, Ta,Nb, and O as instantly claimed. Regarding Claim 19, the discussion of Claim 18 is relied upon as above. Fukugami discloses tin oxide layers that may comprise tantalum as an additional metal up to 20 atomic percent (paragraph [0079]). The oxygen contents of these films may be calculated. SnO 1.51 80% / Ta/Nb 20% would comprise an oxygen content is 0.481 and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.288; SnO 2 80%/TaNb 20% would comprise an oxygen content of 53.33% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.211. SnO 1.51 90% / Ta/Nb 10% would comprise an oxygen content is 53.7% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.198; SnO 2 90%/TaNb 10% would comprise an oxygen content of 60% and an oxygen deficiency ratio of 0.106. Therefore, the compositions disclosed in Fukugami and modified in view of Goto comprise an oxygen content ranging from 48.1% to at least 60% using the O/Sn content of 1.51 and 2.0. 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). Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.... In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the compositions of Fukugami based on the disclosure to have a O/Sn ratio in the range of 1.51 to 2 and to have additional metals in the composition in the range of 0 to 20 atomic percent. In doing so, these modifications would overlap the claimed total oxygen content of 50 atomic percent or more. Regarding Claim 20, the discussion of Claim 19 is relied upon as above. Fukugami further discloses that the extinction coefficient for EUV hardly differ between tin oxide with an O/Sn ratio of 1.5 to 2.0 and values were obtained for each of the samples such that refractive index n=0.930 to 0.935 and extinction coefficient k=0.0714 to 0.0721 (paragraph [0048-0049]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN JAMES DRUMMEY whose telephone number is (703)756-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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 Huff can be reached at (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. /MARK F. HUFF/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 2 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 3 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 4 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 5 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 6 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 7 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 8 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 9 Art Unit: 1737 Application/Control Number: 17/794,202 Page 10 Art Unit: 1737