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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, line 23, filed 16 December 2025, with respect to the objection of Claims 7 and 22 have been fully considered and, in light of the claim amendments made, are persuasive. The objection of Claims 7 and 22 has been withdrawn.
2. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 1, filed 16 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-6, 15-16, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337370 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Gallagher et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0051015 A1), hereinafter Gallagher, and in further view of Seo et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2015/0010854 A1), hereinafter Seo; have been fully considered and, in light of the claim amendments made, are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lu et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0272686 A1), hereinafter Lu. That said, Applicant has repeated an argument they made on 09 August 2024, i.e. that Gallagher fails to teach the formation of a protection layer in the second openings all the way down to the substrate. In the Office Action dated 25 November 2024, Examiner responded:
Lee is the primary reference and teaches patterning or etching second openings all the way down to the substrate. Gallagher teaches the formation of a protection layer along the walls of the second openings, including the bottom of said openings (See Fig. 12 of Gallagher). Thus, Lee in view of Gallagher teaches the formation of second openings extending down to the substrate and the formation of a protection layer on the sidewalls and bottom of said openings. Furthermore, Applicant errs in arguing that Gallagher does not teach that the coating of the second openings therein is not protective in nature. Paragraph [0043] of Gallagher teaches that said coating is, in fact, protective in nature.
Examiner maintains this response to the same argument that has been made previously.
3. Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, line 1, filed 16 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337370 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Takai (United States Patent Publication No. US 2009/0220869 A1), hereinafter Takai; utilizing Mikami et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0017601 A1), hereinafter Mikami as a teaching reference; have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It appears that Applicant has directed the whole of their arguments towards applicability of Gallagher and Seo in the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-6, 15-16, and 18-24. Given that neither Gallagher nor Seo is relied upon in the rejection of Claims 7-12, the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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:
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 15-16, 18-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337370 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Gallagher et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0051015 A1), hereinafter Gallagher, and in further view of Yan et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2007/0090084 A1), hereinafter Yan.
7. Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 23, Lee teaches (Paragraph [0018]) a plurality of multilayers of reflecting films disposed over a substrate, therein a reflective layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) a capping layer disposed over the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0019]) an absorption layer disposed over the capping layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) first openings in the absorption layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) the first openings exposing portions of the capping layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0024-0027]) the second openings extending through the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films to the substrate. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0017]) a blind layer disposed below the substrate, wherein the blind layer is a CrN layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films comprises alternately stacked layers of Mo and Si. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the capping layer includes one or more of Ru, RuN, RuO, and RuNb. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0019]) the absorption layer comprises a bilayer of TaBO and TaBN. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0017]) the substrate comprising a low thermal expansion material.
8. However, Lee fails to teach a protection layer disposed inside second openings on the substrate. Furthermore, Lee fails to teach the protection layer comprises a layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, TaON, B4C, or TiN. Furthermore, Lee fails to teach the layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, TaON, B4C, or TiN has a thickness of 1 nm to 30 nm. Furthermore, Lee also fails to teach the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation. Furthermore, Lee also fails to teach the protection layer further covers sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Furthermore, Lee fails to explicitly teach the protection layer comprises a layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, or TaON. Furthermore, Lee fails to explicitly teach the protection layer comprises a layer of CrON, B4C, or TiN.
9. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) a protection layer disposed inside second openings. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) the protection layer further covers sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Gallagher teaches (Paragraph [0043]) that forming the protection layer protects the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films.
10. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Gallagher to further comprise a protection layer disposed inside second openings; the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation; and the protection layer further covers sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Doing so would result in a protection layer inside the second openings which protects the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films, as recognized by Gallagher.
11. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) the protection layer, therein the buffer layer comprises a layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) forming the protection layer that includes the layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN has a thickness of 2 nm to 5 nm. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) the protection layer comprises a layer of CrON. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) that said layer protect the underlying layer.
12. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lu wherein forming the protection layer includes a layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN; wherein forming the protection layer that includes the layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN has a thickness of 2 nm to 5 nm; and the protection layer includes a layer of CrON. Doing so would result in protection for the underlying layer, as recognized by Lu.
13. Regarding Claims 15-16, 18-21, and 24, Lee teaches (Paragraph [0018]) a plurality of multilayers of reflecting films disposed over a substrate, therein a reflective layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) a capping layer disposed over the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0019]) an absorption layer disposed over the capping layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) first openings in the absorption layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) the first openings exposing portions of the capping layer and at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films disposed inside second openings. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0024-0027]) the second openings extending through the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films to the substrate. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0017]) a blind layer disposed below the substrate, wherein the blind layer is a CrN layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films comprises alternately stacked layers of Mo and Si. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the capping layer includes one or more of Ru, RuN, RuO, and RuNb. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0019]) the absorption layer comprises a bilayer of TaBO and TaBN. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0017]) the substrate comprising a low thermal expansion material.
14. However, Lee fails to teach a protection layer disposed inside second openings and in direct contact with the substrate exposed in the second openings. Furthermore, Lee fails to teach the protection layer comprises a layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, TaON, B4C, or TiN. Furthermore, Lee fails to teach the layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, TaON, B4C, or TiN has a thickness of 1 nm to 30 nm. Furthermore, Lee also fails to teach the protection layer covers the exposed portions of the substrate and sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Furthermore, Lee also fails to teach the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation. Furthermore, Lee fails to explicitly teach the protection layer comprises a layer of RuB, TaBO, CrON, CrN, or TaON.
15. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) a protection layer disposed inside second openings and in direct contact with the substrate exposed in the second openings. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) the protection layer covers the exposed portions of the substrate and sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Gallagher teaches (Fig. 12, Paragraph [0043]) the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation. Gallagher teaches (Paragraph [0043]) that forming the protection layer protects the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films.
16. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Gallagher to further comprise a protection layer disposed inside second openings; the protection layer covers the exposed portions of the substrate and sidewalls of the second openings formed by the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films; and the protection layer protects the substrate against an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) irradiation. Doing so would result in a protection layer inside the second openings which protects the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films, as recognized by Gallagher.
17. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) the protection layer, therein the buffer layer comprises a layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) forming the protection layer that includes the layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN has a thickness of 2 nm to 5 nm. Lu teaches (Paragraph [0020]) that said layer protect the underlying layer.
18. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lu wherein forming the protection layer includes a layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN; and wherein forming the protection layer that includes the layer of RuB, CrON, or CrN has a thickness of 2 nm to 5 nm. Doing so would result in protection for the underlying layer, as recognized by Lu.
19. Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2013/0337370 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Takai (United States Patent Publication No. US 2009/0220869 A1), hereinafter Takai; utilizing Mikami et al. (United States Patent Publication No. US 2014/0017601 A1), hereinafter Mikami as a teaching reference.
20. Regarding Claims 7-12, Lee teaches (Paragraph [0018]) a plurality of multilayers of reflecting films disposed over a substrate, therein a reflective layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) a capping layer disposed over the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0019]) an absorption layer disposed over the capping layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) first openings in the absorption layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0021-0023]) the first openings exposing portions of the capping layer and at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films disposed inside second openings of the black border region. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0024-0027]) second openings of the black border region are formed in the absorption layer, the capping layer, and the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0017]) a blind layer disposed below the substrate, wherein the blind layer is a CrN layer. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films comprises alternately stacked layers of Mo and Si. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0018]) the capping layer includes one or more of Ru, RuN, RuO, and RuNb. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0019]) the absorption layer comprises a bilayer of TaBO and TaBN. Lee teaches (Paragraphs [0017]) the substrate comprising a low thermal expansion material. Lee teaches (Paragraph [0018]) the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films includes one or more bottom-most layers of the plurality of the multilayer of reflecting films.
21. However, Lee fails to explicitly teach the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films has a thickness of 7 nm to 14 nm. Furthermore, Lee fails to explicitly teach the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers has a reflectivity ranging from 0.05% to 0.4%.
22. Takai teaches (Paragraphs [0056-0063]) the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers of reflecting films has a thickness of 7 nm to 14 nm. Takai teaches (Paragraphs [0056-0063]) retaining a portion of the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films results in the prevention of charge-up in the exposed region at the time of exposure, thus obtaining advantages including capability of obtaining a distortion-free reflection pattern image.
23. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Takai wherein the portion of the plurality of multilayer of reflecting films that is retained has a thickness of around 7 nm to around 14 nm. Doing so would result in the capability of obtaining a distortion-free reflection pattern image, as recognized by Takai.
24. Lee in view of Takai teaches all other limitations of Claim 7 save for the amended claim language “the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers has a reflectivity ranging from 0.05% to 0.4%.” Mikami teaches (Paragraphs [0031, 0041, 0102, 0106, and 0237]) the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers, therein a reflectivity distribution correction layer, has a reflectivity with a maximum value of 0.3. Mikami teaches (Abstract) the therein reflectivity distribution correction layer suppresses the in-plane distribution of the peak reflectivity of light in the EUV wavelength region in a radial direction from the center of the substrate. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states: “’[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Given that Lee in view of Takai teaches all other limitations of Claim 7 and Mikami teaches a rationale for achieving a reflectivity of a maximum of 0.3 of the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers, thus not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Takai through routine experimentation resulting in “the at least one layer of film of the plurality of multilayers has a reflectivity ranging from 0.05% to 0.4%.”
Conclusion
25. 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).
26. 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.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to RICHARD D CHAMPION at telephone number (571) 272-0750. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Mon-Fri EST.
28. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MARK F 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.
29. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
30. 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.
/R.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737