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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12-20 are 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 12 recites the limitation "the fourth corner of the mask" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 12.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the fourth corner of the mask” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-20 are further rejected due to their dependency on Claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claim 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2020/0089100, IDS 10/06/2022) in view of Lu (US 2021/0057350).
Regarding Claim 1, Ha teaches photomask for negative tone development including a main region and a scribe lane region surrounding the main region including a first and second lane (abstract). In Fig. 1 and 2, the main region of the photomask comprises a main pattern 104 for patterning a cell layer or for patterning a core-peri layer (paragraph [0032]) and the first sub-lane 121 may include a first dummy pattern LD1 and the second sub-lane 122 may include a second dummy pattern LD2 and a blank region BL provided therebetween (paragraph [0039-0041]). Figure 10 shows a conceptual diagram comprising a main region (corresponding to the main area in which a main pattern is defined), surrounded by sub-lanes 122 and 126 (corresponding to first dummy area partially surrounding the main area) separated by a blank region with sublanes 121 and 125 on further on the perimeter (corresponding to a second dummy area). The corner region 110A1 in the corner of the photomask is an extension and intersection of the sublane 121 and sublane 125 (corresponding to sub-dummy patterns defined at corresponding corners of the mask).
Ha is silent to lithographically patterning first through fourth photoresist regions on respective first through fourth regions of a semiconductor in sequence.
However, Lu teaches a method for fabricating a semiconductor structure where first features are formed in a first product region (abstract). A mask may comprise a product region and an alignment region (paragraph [0037-0038]). Lu describes using four lithographic exposures to form first through fourth regions using first through fourth masks (paragraph [0064-0066]).
While Lu does not explicitly note the masks may comprise the same feature i.e. the masks are the same mask, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ha with the first through fourth sequential exposure steps of Lu to sequentially pattern the feature through the mask four times at different regions through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to pattern the feature at the first through fourth regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
409
416
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 8-10, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Ha discloses in Fig. 1 the general features of the photomask. The area 110A in Fig. 1 is further defined in Fig. 10 comprising area 110A1 to 110A4 such that the areas 110C and 110D would also comprise areas 110C1 to 110C4 and 110D1 to 110D4.
A first area may be defined as 110A2, which contains the second sub-dummy area; a second area may be defined as the areas 110A3 and 110A4, which entirely overlaps the first area, comprises two corners containing second sub-dummy patterns, and contains a boundary area BL between the first area which is not the second dummy area; a third are may be defined as the areas 120C (125 and 126), 110C3 110C4, and 123 which protrudes from an end of the second area, comprises a second sub-dummy pattern in the corner of 110C3 and has a boundary area from pattern 126 which is not the second dummy area; and the fourth area may be defined as 127 and 110D4 which overlaps the third area entirely and contains no second sub-dummy patterns or second dummy area.
PNG
media_image3.png
913
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2020/0089100) in view of Lu (US 2021/0057350) as applied to Claim 1 further in view of Tsai (US 2016/0190116).
Regarding Claim 2-5, the discussion of Claim 1 is relied upon as above. Ha further discloses an example embodiment the width of the first sub-lane 121 may be different from that of the second sub-lane 122 (paragraph [0061]). In Fig. 7A specific embodiments show the adjacent patterns of sub-lane 121 having a greater width than the sub-lane 122 (paragraph [0019]). In addition, as shown by Fig. 10, the first corner region 110A1 is an extension of the sublane 121 and would have the same pattern width (paragraph [0109]). Ha further discloses in Fig. 7A a number of patterns in the main region, such that one of the additional patterns would correspond to the main active pattern. Also in Fig. 7A, there are a number of sub-lanes 121 such that one of the sub-lanes would correspond to the second dummy active pattern (Claim 5).
Ha and Lu are silent to particular embodiments indicating a thickness range for the main gate pattern and a second dummy gate pattern.
However, Tsai teaches a photomask with a plurality of sub-resolution assist features surrounding the plurality of main patterns to improve the uniformity of critical dimension between the central region and the boundary region of the plurality of main patterns and reduce production defects and blind holes in the boundary region (paragraph [0028]). The linewidth of each sub-resolution assist feature is 60 to 200 nm (paragraph [0026]) and the linewidth of the pattern is 36 nm to 120 nm (paragraph [0012]) (Claims 3 and 4). Tsai discloses the size and pattern of the photomask is one to ten times the pattern and size of the desired feature on the substrate (paragraph [0041]). Thus, the width of the second dummy feature may be larger than the linewidth of the pattern feature (Claim 2).
Tsai discloses ranges for the width dimensions of both the sub-resolution assist features and for the patterned features that overlap the claimed ranges. 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.
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the photomask of Ha in view of Lu with the dimensional features of the sub-resolution assist features and main pattern disclosed in Tsai through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to improve the uniformity of critical dimension between the central region and the boundary region of the plurality of main patterns and reduce production defects and blind holes in the boundary region as suggested by Tsai. Based on this modification, one of ordinary skill would envision a photomask having the claimed dimensions of second dummy features and main pattern feature.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2020/0089100) in view of Lu (US 2021/0057350) as applied to Claim 1 further in view of Lin (US 2018/0202034).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Ha teaches dummy areas along the edges and the corner comprising sublanes and the corner region 110A1 comprises a square area of intersecting sublanes (Fig. 7, Fig. 10).
Ha is silent to reciting specific dimensions for the dummy area.
However, Lin teaches a mask plate provided with a mask unit including a dummy are located at an edge and an active area located at an inner side of the dummy area (paragraph [0064]). The mask provided with a dummy area may have a width of 10-100 µm (paragraph [0067]).
The width of 10 µm overlaps the end point of the range of 7-10 µm disclosed in the claim. Furthermore. Furthermore, applying this modification of the width of the sublanes to the reference Ha would result in a square corner region 110A1 having an area of 100 µm2, which overlaps the range of 49-100 µm2 disclosed in the claim. 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.
Both Ha and Lin contain regions of dummy areas on the edge or periphery of the photomask and are analogous art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sublanes of Ha with the dimension widths disclosed in Lin through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to produce a working photomask having the claimed dimensions of dummy area regions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (US 2020/0089100) in view of Lu (US 2021/0057350) and Yabe (US 2019/0095740).
Regarding Claim 11, Ha teaches photomask for negative tone development including a main region and a scribe lane region surrounding the main region including a first and second lane (abstract). In Fig. 1 and 2, the main region of the photomask comprises a main pattern 104 for patterning a cell layer or for patterning a core-peri layer (paragraph [0032]) and the first sub-lane 121 may include a first dummy pattern LD1 and the second sub-lane 122 may include a second dummy pattern LD2 and a blank region BL provided therebetween (paragraph [0039-0041]). Figure 10 shows a conceptual diagram comprising a main region (corresponding to the main area in which a main pattern is defined), surrounded by sub-lanes 122 and 126 (corresponding to first dummy area partially surrounding the main area) separated by a blank region with sublanes 121 and 125 on further on the perimeter (corresponding to a second dummy area). The corner region 110A1 in the corner of the photomask is an extension and intersection of the sublane 121 and sublane 125 (corresponding to sub-dummy patterns defined at corresponding corners of the mask).
Ha is silent to lithographically patterning first through fourth photoresist regions on respective first through fourth regions of a semiconductor in sequence.
However, Lu teaches a method for fabricating a semiconductor structure where first features are formed in a first product region (abstract). A mask may comprise a product region and an alignment region (paragraph [0037-0038]). Lu describes using four lithographic exposures to form first through fourth regions using first through fourth masks (paragraph [0064-0066]).
While Lu does not explicitly note the masks may comprise the same feature i.e. the masks are the same mask, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Ha with the first through fourth sequential exposure steps of Lu to sequentially pattern the feature through the mask four times at different regions through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect this modification to pattern the feature at the first through fourth regions.
Yabe teaches an inspection method including rough alignment process of acquiring optical images of first and second patterns (abstract). In Fig. 11, the mask comprises a first rough alignment pattern P1 and second rough alignment pattern P2 (paragraph [0143]). The rough alignment pattern is processing of confirming whether a position misalignment amount in the rotating direction (paragraph [0071]). Fig. 11 also shows the fine alignment patterns PP1 and PP2 (paragraph [0084]). The fine alignment have a positional relation being positioned on a plurality of different corners (paragraph [0083-0084]). When the position misalignment amount in the rotation direction of the mask 2 with respect to the X-axis direction or the Y-axis direction is too large, an alignment amount for fine alignment, which will be described later, may be excessive, so that a time required for the fine alignment becomes long; therefore, the rough alignment is performed before the fine alignment to prevent the required time for the fine alignment from becoming long (paragraph [0072]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the photomask of Hu with the fine and rough alignment features of Yabe through routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce the time taken for aligning the mask as suggested by Yabe. The rough alignment mark at the very corner of the photomask would be further away from the center of the main area than the dummy features in the corner that do not touch the corner disclosed by Ha.
PNG
media_image4.png
439
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The allowable subject matter pertains to a protruding portion of the third area with a fourth area entirely overlapping the third area and particularly an alignment area extending as a protrusion from the fourth corner of the mask.
The closest prior art is as follows:
Ha (US 2020/0089100) teaches sub-dummy regions in four corners of a square photomask, but fails to teach a protruding area on a photomask and the protruding area comprising an alignment mark.
Lu (US 2021/0057350) teaches sequential patterning first through fourth areas of a substrate using a photomask, but fails to teach a protruding area on a photomask and the protruding area comprising an alignment mark.
Yabe (US 2019/0095740) teaches applying a coarse alignment mark on the very corner of a photomask to reduce the alignment time, but fails to teach an alignment mark on an area protruding from the fourth corner of the mask.
Lin (US 2018/0202034) teaches a mask plate provided with a mask unit including a dummy are located at an edge and an active area located at an inner side of the dummy area, but fails to teach a protruding area on a photomask and the protruding area comprising an alignment mark.
There is no teaching or disclosure described by the references singly or together that would specifically lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention wherein a photomask comprises a protruding area having an alignment mark.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
/K.J.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights