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 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 1-10 and 13-20 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.
The claims should make it clear that the first thin film is a buffer layer and the second thin film is an absorber layer.
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 1-4,6, 9, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Okamura et al. 20140186753, as evidenced by Ikebe et al. 20190384158.
Okamura et al. 20140186753 in an example exemplifies a mask blank including substrate coated with a reflective Mo/Si multilayer, a 2.5 nm Ru capping/buffer layer, a TaN/TaON absorber structure [0177-0183].
For the 2.5 nm Ru layer with a k of 0.18, formula 1 yields 29.7, which greater than the reflectance inherent to the described TaN/TaON absorber structure.
Ikebe et al. 20190384158 reports the refractive indices and extinction coefficients of various elements at 13.5 nm in figure 2.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The k for Ru is ~0.018, the k for Ta is ~0.041, the k for Cr is ~0.039, the k for Rh is ~0.031
Claims 1-9, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)as being fully anticipated by Shoki et al. WO 2020175354.
Shoki et al. WO 2020175354 (cited by applicant, machine translation attached) in example 1, teaches a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 2.5 nm Ru protective/capping layer, a 2-20 nm TaBN buffer layer (k=0.030), a 44 nm CrN absorber layer (k=0.038) TaBO antireflection layer , this was then patterned using a resist [0128-0150]. Examples 1-1 exemplifies a 2 nm thick TaBN buffer layer, example 1-2 exemplifies a 5 nm TaBN buffer layer, example 1-3 exemplifies a 10 nm TaBN buffer layer, example 1-4 exemplifies a 15 nm TaBN buffer layer, example 1-3 exemplifies a 20 nm TaBN buffer layer,
For 20 nm, formula 1 yields 8.34%, for 15 nm, the result is 12.83%, for 10 nm the result is 18.28% , for 5 nm the result is 24.71% for 2 nm the result is 29.02%, for 25 nm, the value is 4.82%
The examiner considered the TaBO antireflection layer to be the second layer and part of the absorber structure.
The examiner holds that examples 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5 using the TaBN buffer layer with the disclosed thicknesses meet the claim limitations
Claims 1-9,13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)as being fully anticipated by Hosoya et al. 20110217633.
Hosoya et al. 20110217633 in example 1 teaches a EUV mask blank including a substrate, a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a RuNb protective/capping layer, a 10nm CrN buffer layer, a TaBN absorber layer and a SiON hardmask. This is coated with a resist and patterned, where figure 1d shows the embodiment where the absorber (41a/41b) is patterned, but the buffer layer (3) [0101-0118].
PNG
media_image2.png
119
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Assuming k value of ~0.03 for the CrN buffer layer the calculation for formula 1 yields 18.28%.
Assuming k value of ~0.035 for the CrN buffer layer the calculation for formula 1 yields 16.36%.
The examiner holds that example 1 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 10 nm CrN buffer layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaBN/SiON absorber structure.
Claims 1-7,9, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2)as being fully anticipated by Ito JP 2010206177.
Ito JP 2010206177 (machine translation attached), describes with respect to figures 1 and 3, a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 10 nm Si protective/capping layer, a 10 nm CrN buffer layer, a 40nm TaBN/11 nm TaBO absorber bilayer.
Assuming k value of ~0.03 for the CrN buffer layer the calculation for formula 1 yields 18.28%.
Assuming k value of ~0.035 for the CrN buffer layer the calculation for formula 1 yields 16.36%.
The examiner holds that example 1 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 10 nm CrN buffer layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaBN/TaBO absorber structure [0021-0026].
Claims 1-4,6, 9, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Shiyouki JP 2004281967, as evidenced by Ikebe et al. 20190384158
Shiyouki JP 2004281967 (machine translation attached) in example 1 teaches a substrate coated with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 30 CrRu (capping/buffer layer), a TaBNO absorber layer, which is then patterned. Example 2 is similar, but the buffer layer is a 25 nm thickness of CrRu (50% Ru)
Assuming k=0.030 for the 50/50 RuCr layer with a thickness of 25 nm, the value is 4.82%.
The examiner holds that example 1 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 25nm RuCr buffer layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaBNO absorber structure [0021-0026].
Claims 1-7, 9, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Seitz et al. DE 102006046000.
Seitz et al. DE 102006046000 in example 9 measure the reflectivity of the top surface of a mask blank composed of a substrate, reflective multilayer a Si capping layer, a SiO2 buffer layer, a TaN/TaON absorber. The reflectivity at 13.5 nm is shown to be ~0.1% in figure 16 [0053-0054].
PNG
media_image3.png
544
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In example 4, the achievable contrast for range of thicknesses of a CrN buffer layer and a TaN absorber layer with a substrate, reflective multilayer, Si capping layer was calculated and is presented in figure 7 and 8. The maximum achievable contrast is 99.37%.
PNG
media_image4.png
523
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
518
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In example 6 the achievable contrast for range of thicknesses of a CrN buffer layer and a TaN absorber layer with a substrate, reflective multilayer, Ru capping layer was calculated and is presented in figures 11 and 12. The maximum achievable contrast is 99.27%.
PNG
media_image6.png
483
399
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
547
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner holds that example 9 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 10nm SiO2 buffer layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaN/TaNO O absorber structure,
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Shoki 20030162104.
Shoki 20030162104 in the first example coats a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 3 nm CrN underlayer film, a 45 nm Ta4B intermediate layer, a 50 nm CrN absorber layer [0088-0092].
The examiner holds that the third example meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 3 nm CrN buffer layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the Ta4B/CrN absorber structure.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Akagi et al. WO 2022118762
Akagi et al. WO 2022118762 (machine translation attached) in example 1 describes a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 2.5 nm Rh capping/protective layer, a RuON, RuN or TaN absorber layer [0056-0064]. Example 8 is similar, but the absorber is a 35 nm thickness of RuTa [0071-0072]. Example 16-19 use a 35 nm RuCr absorber layer [0080-0083].
Assuming k is 0.031, for a 2.5 nm thick Rh layer, the value of formula 1 is 28.15.
The examiner holds that example 1 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 2.5 nm Rh layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaBN/SiON absorber structure.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Ikebe et al. WO 2021100383.
Ikebe et al. WO 2021100383 (machine translation attached) in example 1, a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 2.6 nm SiO2 capping/buffer layer and a RuCrN/RuCrO absorber bilayer and a SiN hard/etch mask. This mask blank was then patterned ([0134-0167] and table 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
255
310
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. Example 2 is similar.
The examiner holds that example 1 meets the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 2.6 nm SiO2 layer is greater than the reflectance inherent in the RuCrN/RuCrO absorber structure.
Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz et al. DE 102006046000.
Seitz et al. DE 102006046000 does not exemplify and embodiment where the buffer layer is CrN.
With respect to claims 1-6,9,13-16 and 18, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify teaching of example 4 of Seitz et al. DE 102006046000 by forming a mask blank with a the thickness of the CrN buffer layer between 1 and 20 nm and the thickness of the TaN layer of the TaN/TaON bilayer optimized within the range of ~35-80 nm to maximize the contrast using the data in figure 7 and 8 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask blank with high contrast..
With respect to claims 1-9 and 13-18, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify teaching of example 6 of Seitz et al. DE 102006046000 by forming a mask blank with a the thickness of the CrN buffer layer between 1 and 20 nm and the thickness of the TaN layer of the TaN/TaON bilayer optimized within the range of ~35-80 nm to maximize the contrast using the data in figure 11 and 12 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask blank with high contrast..
Claims 1-9 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. 20210223678.
Hsu et al. 20210223678 teaches with respect to figure 2, a substrate (102), a reflective multilayer (112/114), a capping layer (106), a metal oxide layer (116, buffer layer), a metal nitride layer (118, absorber) and a metal oxide layer (119, antireflection layer). The capping layer can be Ru. The first metal oxide layer (116) can be a 0-2 nm thickness of TaBO. A 1-2 nm TaO layer, a 0-5.5 nm RuO, 0-5.5 nm RuNbO or 0-5.5 nm NbO. The metal nitride layer (118) can be 60-75 nm of TaBN and the second oxide layer(119) can be 1-5 nm or TaBO [0014-0035].
Hsu et al. 20210223678 does not exemplify a single structure meeting the claims
With respect to claims 1-9 and 13-20, it would have been obvious to form a mask blank with layers 112 to 119 where a Ru capping layer is present and a TaBO, TaO, RuO, RuNbO or NbO buffer layer (first oxide layer) with a thickness of up to 5.5 nm and the TaBN/TaBO absorber structure is used. The examiner holds that the resulting mask blanks meet the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for the 0-5.5 nm layers is greater than the reflectance inherent in the TaBN/SiON absorber structure.
Claims 1-9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. KR 101579852.
Nam et al. KR 101579852 (machine translation attached) describes in example 1, a substrate with a Mo/Si reflective multilayer, a 2.5 nm Ru capping layer, (65.8% reflectance at 13.5 nm) and a InTaN/InTaO absorber bilayer, where the upper layer has a reflectance at 13.5 nm of 1.07%. The inspection wavelength was 193 nm [0079-0087]. A buffer layer is not shown, but is provided between the capping layer and the absorber layer top protect the capping and reflective multilayer from being damaged during patterning of the absorber or a repair process to correct a black or white defect in the absorber pattern. The buffer pattern can be a Cr based compound having etch selectivity to etching by focused ion beams or electron beams combined with a fluorine gas, such as XeF2 or the like. It may have a thickness of 5-15 nm [0052-0053]. The use of 193 or 257 as the inspection wavelengths is disclosed [0045].
Nam et al. KR 101579852 does not exemplify a maskblank with a buffer layer.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the maskblank of example 1, by adding a Cr based buffer layer having a thickness of 5-15 nm with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask blanks where the capping and reflective multilayer would be protected during patterning or correction of the absorber pattern as taught at [0052-0053]. The examiner holds that the resulting mask blanks meet the limitations of the claims as the value of formula 1 for 5-15 nm buffer layers is greater than the reflectance inherent in the InTaN/InTaO absorber structure.
Claims 1-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. KR 101579852, in view of Xiong et al. 20120238096 and Takehisa et al. JP 2012118162.
Xiong et al. 20120238096 teaches that although commonly available inspection stations operate at 193 nm, those skilled in the art will recognize that inspection technologies may be extended to operate in the EUV regime (e.g., 13.5 nm). As such, EUV based inspection systems may be configured to match the EUV wavelength used in lithographic processes, utilized to etch the patterns onto IC wafers [0029]. Figure 5c illustrates a correction of the absorber (46), where the absorber has been removed and a buffer layer (42) protects the reflective multilayer (43) [0035].
Takehisa et al. JP 2019144069 (machine translation attached) establishes that the size of an unacceptable defect in the EUV mask 10 is significantly smaller than that of a conventional ArF mask, making it difficult to detect. Accordingly, an actinic inspection that uses EUV light, that is, illumination light having the same wavelength as that of exposure light having a wavelength of 13.5 nm, is indispensable for pattern inspection. Note that the actinic inspection apparatus for blanks of the EUV mask 10 is disclosed in the prior art (NPL1) [0004].
Nam et al. KR 101579852 does not exemplify a maskblank with a buffer layer or describe the use of 13.5 nm light in the inspection process.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the maskblank of example 1 of Nam et al. KR 101579852, by adding a Cr based buffer layer having a thickness of 5-15 nm with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask blanks where the capping and reflective multilayer would be protected during patterning or correction of the absorber pattern as taught at [0052-0053] of Nam et al. KR 101579852 and after patterning to use 13.5 nm, rather than 193 or 257 nm for the inspection of the patterns based upon the teachings of Xiong et al. 20120238096 and Takehisa et al. JP 2012118162, noting that longer inspection wavelengths cannot defect small defects in the pattern and to correct the absorber pattern as needed using an electron beams in the presence of a fluorinated gas such as XeF2 as taught in Nam et al. KR 101579852 at [0052-0053].
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6,9,13-16 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17431700 (20220121102, note WO reference above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 recites: A reflective mask blank comprising: a substrate, a multilayer reflective film disposed on the substrate, an absorber film disposed on the multilayer reflective film, and an etching mask film disposed on the absorber film, wherein the absorber film comprises a buffer layer and an absorption layer provided on the buffer layer, the buffer layer comprises tantalum (Ta) or silicon (Si), and a film thickness of the buffer layer is 0.5 nm or more and 25 nm or less, the absorption layer comprises chromium (Cr), and an extinction coefficient of the absorption layer with respect to EUV light is higher than the extinction coefficient of the buffer layer with respect to EUV light, and the etching mask film comprises tantalum (Ta) or silicon (Si), and a film thickness of the etching mask film is 0.5 nm or more and 14 nm or less.
Claim 3 recites: The reflective mask blank according to claim 1, wherein the buffer layer comprises tantalum (Ta) and at least one element selected from nitrogen (N) and boron (B), and a film thickness of the buffer layer is 25 nm or less
Claim 5 recites: The reflective mask blank according to claim 1, wherein the buffer layer comprises tantalum (Ta) and oxygen (O), and a film thickness of the buffer layer is 15 nm or less.
Claim 6 recites: The reflective mask blank according to claim 1, wherein the absorption layer comprises chromium (Cr) and nitrogen (N), and a film thickness of the absorption layer is 25 nm or more and less than 60 nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the limitations of claim 1,6 and either claims 3 or claim 5, which embraces an embodiment with a highly absorbing absorber layer and buffer layers with thicknesses of 15 nm or less, which would inherently meet the contrast limitation ands well as the limitations of formula I of the instant claims.(note the effect of the thickness on the calculated values in the rejection above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20230333459, 20220390826, 20230418148, 20240411220 each teach similar EUV mask blanks to those disclosed in the instant application,
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 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 December 9, 2025