DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17 and 20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections presented in the office action dated 12/29/2025 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Suzuki and Ohkubo; the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Suzuki, Ohkubo and Nam; and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Suzuki, Ohkubo, Nam and Van Lare have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsumoto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 8, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0167185 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0252995 A1), herein referred to as Matsumoto.
With respect to amended claim 1, Suzuki teaches [0025-0026 and 0043] a phase shift mask blank used for producing a phase shift mask to which an exposure light with a wavelength of 200 nm or less is applied, the phase shift mask blank comprising a transparent substrate (light-transmissive substrate [0025-0026]) and a phase shift film (light semi-transmissive thin film [0043]) formed on the transparent substrate. The phase shift film [0035 and 0043] includes a phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer capable of adjusting each of a phase and transmittance by a predetermined amount with respect to a transmitting exposure light and a protective layer [0040] against gas permeation formed on the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer and preventing gas permeation into the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer (suppressing oxidation rate of the light semi-transmissive thin film, thereby reducing haze formation [0009 and 0040]). Suzuki further teaches the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is located on the transparent substrate side (Figure 1, light semi-transmissive thin film 2 formed on light-transmissive substrate 1). The film thickness of the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is larger (Example 1, light semi-transmissive thin film thickness of 69 nm) than the thickness of the protective layer (Example 1, protective layer thickness of 1 nm). Suzuki further teaches [0042] it is preferable for the protective layer to have a thickness of 15 nm or less.
With respect to amended claim 8, Suzuki teaches [0025-0026 and 0043-0044] a phase shift mask to which an exposure light with a wavelength of 200 nm or less is applied and which includes a circuit pattern, the phase shift mask comprising a transparent substrate (light-transmissive substrate [0025-0026]) and a phase shift film (light semi-transmissive thin film [0043]) formed on the transparent substrate. The phase shift film [0035 and 0043] includes a phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer capable of adjusting each of a phase and transmittance by a predetermined amount with respect to a transmitting exposure light and a protective layer [0040] against gas permeation formed on the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer and preventing gas permeation into the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer (suppressing oxidation rate of the light semi-transmissive thin film, thereby reducing haze formation [0009 and 0040]). Suzuki further teaches the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is located on the transparent substrate side (Figure 1, phase shift mask blank 10 with light semi-transmissive thin film 2 formed on light-transmissive substrate 1) and the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is subsequently patterned (Figure 2, steps a-e, forming a phase shift mask 20 with a patterned phase shift layer 2a). The film thickness of the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is larger (Example 1, light semi-transmissive thin film thickness of 69 nm) than the thickness of the protective layer (Example 1, protective layer thickness of 1 nm). Suzuki further teaches [0042] it is preferable for the protective layer to have a thickness of 15 nm or less.
Suzuki teaches [0041-0043] the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer contains molybdenum and silicon (light semi-transmissive thin film includes molybdenum silicide (MoSi)). Suzuki does not appear to teach the limitation of amended claims 1 and 8 directed to the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer including silicon, a transition metal, nitrogen and oxygen, wherein the transition metal is at least one selected from molybdenum, titanium, vanadium, cobalt, nickel, zirconium, niobium, and hafnium.
However, from the same field of technology, Matsumoto recites the formation of a mask blank and a transfer mask manufactured from the aforementioned mask blank. In view of amended claims 1 and 8, Matsumoto teaches [0088 and 0105] a mask blank comprising a phase shift film that can include a transition metal, silicon, nitrogen, carbon and oxygen. Matsumoto further teaches the transition metal may include one or metals selected from molybdenum (Mo), titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), vanadium (V), zirconium (Zr) and niobium (Nb). Matsumoto suggests [0100] the aforementioned phase shift film exhibits improved phase shifting and light transmittance properties.
At the time of the filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask taught by Suzuki to include the phase shift film composition taught by Matsumoto for the purpose of improving the optical properties of the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask. By substituting the phase shift film of Matsumoto in the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask of Suzuki, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve predictable results and enhance the transfer performance of the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask when employed in a photolithographic exposure process.
In view of claims 2 and 9 and in view of MPEP Chapter 2112.01, Section II, since the combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto teaches a phase shift film that can include a transition metal, silicon, nitrogen and oxygen that includes molybdenum silicide, the phase shift film taught by the combination of Suzuki and Ohkubo is presumed to have etching resistance to chlorine-based etching and favorable etching properties for fluorine-based etching because, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto teaches (Suzuki [0090, 0093,0112-0115 and 0151]) manufacturing a phase shift mask from the phase shift mask blank including steps of forming a light-shielding film on the phase shift film; forming a resist pattern on the light shielding film formed on the phase shift film; after forming the resist pattern, forming a pattern on the light shielding film by oxygen-containing chlorine-based etching (mixed gas of Cl2 and O2, [0151]); after forming the pattern on the light shielding film, forming a pattern on the phase shift film by fluorine-based etching (SF6 gas etchant, [0115]); after forming the pattern on the phase shift film, removing the resist pattern; and after removing the resist pattern, removing the light shielding film by the oxygen-containing chlorine-based etching from the phase shift film.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15 would have been obvious at the time of the filing date of the pending application.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0167185 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0252995 A1), herein referred to as Matsumoto, as applied to amended claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Nam et al. (US 2015/0268552 A1), herein referred to as Nam.
The combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto teaches the limitations of amended claims 1 and 8 as discussed above. However, the combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 4-6, 11-13, 17 and 20 directed to the claimed materials for the protective layer.
However, from the same field of technology, Nam recites the formation of a blankmask and a photomask from the blankmask. In view of claims 4-6, 11-13, 17 and 20, Nam teaches [0048 and 0061] a protective film formed on a light-shielding film wherein the protective film comprises tantalum or tungsten and may further comprise oxygen, carbon or nitrogen in addition to tantalum or tungsten.
At the time of the filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask taught by the combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto to further include the protective layer composition taught by Nam in order to prevent thickness loss of the phase shift film disposed below the protective layer. By substituting a protective layer comprising tantalum or tungsten taught by Nam with the protective layer taught by the combination of Suzuki and Matsumoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve predictable results and reduce the formation of defective pattern regions on a phase shift mask blank and phase shift photomask. Therefore, claims 4-6, 11-13, 17 and 20 would have been obvious at the time of the filing date of the pending application.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0167185 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2018/0252995 A1), herein referred to as Matsumoto, and Nam et al. (US 2015/0268552 A1), herein referred to as Nam, as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Van Lare et al. (US 2022/0121105 A1), herein referred to as Van Lare.
The combination of Suzuki, Matsumoto and Nam teaches the limitations of claims 4 and 11 as discussed above. However, the combination of Suzuki, Matsumoto and Nam does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 7 and 14 directed to the protective layer comprising tellurium.
However, from the same field of technology, Van Lare recites the formation of an attenuated phase shift patterning device. In view of claims 7 and 14, Van Lare teaches [0108] a capping layer (protective layer) wherein the capping layer comprises tellurium (Te).
At the time of the filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask taught by the combination of Suzuki, Matsumoto and Nam to further include the protective layer composition taught by Van Lare in order to prevent thickness loss of the phase shift film disposed below the protective layer. By substituting a protective layer comprising tellurium taught by Van Lare with the protective layer taught by the combination of Suzuki, Matsumoto and Nam, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve predictable results and reduce the formation of defective pattern regions on a phase shift mask blank and phase shift photomask. Therefore, claims 7 and 14 would have been obvious at the time of the filing date of the pending application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724