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 response to the office action has been read and given careful consideration. Claims 10-17 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 24, 2025. Rejections of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. Some of the rejection are withdrawn based upon lack of a CrO, CrON or CrOCN layer. Other rejections are withdrawn as the heating disclosed is similar in duration and temperature and occurring after the light shielding layer formation as the 250 degrees C for 15 minutes in comparative example of the instant application to support the comparative example being equivalent to a direct comparison with the prior art (the inventive examples showing improved results).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nam et al. KR 20080025342.
Nam et al. KR 20080025342 (machine translation attached), teaches in example 1, a substrate which is heated to 150 degrees C and then TaN is deposited. The result is an amorphous film, which is then patterned <83-89>. In examples 2, the substrate is heated to 150 degrees C, a TaN, transmission control film), CrCN light shielding film and a CrOCN antireflection film are formed. These are then patterned using a resist. The TaN layer had a Ra of 0.36 nm and a Rq of 0.41 nm, the light shielding film has a roughness of Ra=0.33 nm and Rq of 0.46 nm and the antireflection layer roughness has a Ra of 0.41 nm and a Rq or 0.53 nm <90-103>.
The position of the examiner is that the TaN layer is a phase shift layer and the CrCN/CrCON bilayer is the light shielding layer within the scope of the coverage sought. The TaN, CrCN and CrOCN layers are amorphous due to their formation on a heated substrate (see example 1), which result in the low roughness uniformity across the deposited films. The heating during deposition is held to inherently achieve the same effect on the resulting layers as the combined resistive and radiative (IR) heating disclosed in the examples of the instant specification.
In the response of 3/4/2026, the applicant argues that the none of the references describe the different measuring spots on the light shielding film, describe the low roughness non-uniformity across the surface or a light shielding film comprising CrO, CrON, CrOCN and combinations thereof.. The examiner responds that Nam et al. KR 20080025342 teaches a light shielding layer which is a bilayer of CrCN/CrCON , so the bilayer comprises CrO, CrON and CrOCN as comprising allows for other unrecited elements, such as the other CrCN layer. The measuring spots are locations on the light shielding layer surface and there are no actual artifacts from the measurement as the measurement is a non-contact measurement (see the specification at [000174]). The position of the examiner is that Nam et al. KR 20080025342 teaches heating the substrate during the sputtering/deposition, which results in a roughness of the CrOCN layer measurements of Ra of 0.41 nm and Rq of 0.53 nm, which is indicative of an amorphous layer. The comparative example does not heat the substrate (non-radiatively, without IR) during the deposition of the layers, so it is not clear that the comparative example relied upon is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. This position of the examiner is that the heating at 150 degrees C in Nam et al. KR 20080025342 is a supplementary heating having the same effect as the IR supplementary heating of inventive examples. The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139]. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Okazaki et al. 20010006754.
Okazaki et al. 20010006754 in example 5 coated a substrate with F-doped CrSi film using the condition of embodiment 1 (film formation temperature of 130 degree C, table 2 [0065]), followed by coating a CrCON film coated while the temperature was held at 120 degrees C [0071]. Embodiment 10 coats a substrate with a F-doped MoSi films formed according to embodiments 6 (film formation temperature 130 degrees C, table 7, [0073-0074]), followed by a CrCON film formed with a film formation temperature of 120 degrees C [0079-0080].
The position of the examiner is that the F doped CrSi and the F doped MoSi layers are phase shift layer within the scope of the coverage sought. The F-doped CrSi, F-doped MoSi and CrOCN layers are amorphous due to their formation on a heated substrate, which inherently results in the low roughness uniformity across the deposited films. The heating during deposition is held to achieve the same effect on the resulting layers as the combined resistive and radiative (IR) heating disclosed in the examples of the instant specification.
In the response of 3/4/2026, the applicant argues that the none of the references describe the different measuring spots on the light shielding film, describe the low roughness non-uniformity across the surface or a light shielding film comprising CrO, CrON, CrOCN and combinations thereof.. The examiner responds that Okazaki et al. 20010006754 teaches a light shielding layer which is CrCON , so the layer comprises CrO, CrON and CrOCN as comprising allows for other unrecited elements. The measuring spots are locations on the light shielding layer surface and there are no actual artifacts from the measurement as the measurement is a non-contact measurement (see the specification at [000174]). The position of the examiner is that Okazaki et al. 20010006754 teaches heating the substrate during the sputtering/deposition,. The comparative example does not heat the substrate (non-radiatively, without IR) during the deposition of the layers, so it is not clear that the comparative example relied upon is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. This position of the examiner is that the heating at 130 degrees C in Okazaki et al. 20010006754 is a supplementary heating having the same effect as the IR supplementary heating of inventive examples. The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139].
The rejection stands.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nam et al. KR 20100002067.
Nam et al. KR 20100002067 (machine translation attached) describes the etch stop layer, the metal layer, and the hard mask layer are in an amorphous state. The amorphous state of the thin film is possible through the substrate heating temperature control during the sputtering process, suitably 700 ° C. or less, and more preferably 500 ° C. or less. If the thin film has crystallinity, the edge roughness of the pattern becomes poor when the pattern is formed, which adversely affects the CD characteristics, making it difficult to manufacture a high quality photomask <82>. In example 1, a substrate temperature of 470 degrees C was used during the deposition of a CrCN etch stop layer, a MoTaSi light shielding layer and a CrOCN hardmask layer. this was then coated with a resist and patterned <89-112>. Example 2 was similarly formed, but used a MoSi light shielding film and a MoSiN anti-reflection film, and then heated treated at 300 degrees C for 1 hour <113-118>.
The position of the examiner is that the MoTaSi layer is a phase shift layer within the scope of the coverage sought. The CrCN etch stop layer, a MoTaSi light shielding layer and a CrOCN hardmask layers are amorphous due to their formation on a heated substrate (see example 1), which result in the low roughness uniformity across the deposited films. The heating during deposition is held to inherently achieve the same effect on the resulting layers as the combined resistive and radiative (IR) heating disclosed in the examples of the instant specification.
In the response of 3/4/2026, the applicant argues that the none of the references describe the different measuring spots on the light shielding film, describe the low roughness non-uniformity across the surface or a light shielding film comprising CrO, CrON, CrOCN and combinations thereof.. The examiner responds that Nam et al. KR 20100002067 teaches a CrCON which inherently blocks a portion of the light., so the layer comprises CrO, CrON and CrOCN as comprising allows for other unrecited elements. The measuring spots are locations on the light shielding layer surface and there are no actual artifacts from the measurement as the measurement is a non-contact measurement (see the specification at [000174]). The position of the examiner is that Nam et al. KR 20100002067 teaches heating the substrate during the sputtering/deposition,. The comparative example does not heat the substrate (non-radiatively, without IR) during the deposition of the layers, so it is not clear that the comparative example relied upon is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. This position of the examiner is that the heating at 470 degrees C in Nam et al. KR 20100002067 is a supplementary heating having the same effect as the IR supplementary heating of inventive examples. The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139]. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Sakai et al. JP 2013257593, as evidenced by Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296.
Sakai et al. JP 2013257593 (cited by applicant, machine translation attached to action) in example 1, teaches a substrate coated with a MoSiN phase shifting film, which was heat treated at 450 degrees C for 1 hour. This was then coated with a 30 nm CrOCN layer, a 4 nm CrN layer and a 14 nm CrOCN layer. The surface roughness (Ra) was measured to be 0.56 nm and the flatness was determined to be 310 nm. This was then treated with a mixture of ozone and ethylene for 10 minutes and heated at 60 degrees C which reduced the surface roughness (Ra) to 0.46 nm and the flatness to 310 nm. This was then patterned using a photoresist to form a mask [0057-0068]. The other examples are similar.
The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139].
The instant examples use thermal annealing during the deposition (except in the comparative examples). The examiner holds that the anneals after deposition achieves the same result. The comparative example does not heat at either of the phase shifter or light shielding layer depositions.
The applicant argues that the reference does not include the measurements at the center and 20 mm form the edge of the of the substrate with the recited sampling regions. The applicant argues that Sakai et al. does not include any of the Rz, Rku or Rsk measurements. The applicant has chosen to characterize the surface using these metrics and therefore must bear the burden/consequences of these choices particularly when it has not been established that these metrics impact the performance or produce any unexpected results relevant to the use of the mask. In the instant specification (prepub at 0098]), the specification states” Rz roughness difference of 1.5 nm or less, 0.8 nm or less, or 0.54 nm or less between the center Rz roughness and the edge Rz roughness. The Rz roughness difference may be 0.001 nm or more, or 0.01 nm or more.”, so clearly differences within the range of 0.001 to 1.5 nm can meet the Rz requirement.
The actual roughness (Ra) of the example 1 of Sakai et al. was 0.56 nm and was subsequently lowered to 0.46 nm after treating with a mixture of ozone and ethylene for 10 minutes and heating at 60 degrees C. The roughness Ra is within the range 0.001-1.5 nm as well as the more limited 0.01 to 0.54 nm of the instant specification. The roughness was measured with an atomic force microscope (AFM). The specific measurement is performed within a range of 1 μm square, for example, and it is preferable that the surface roughness be uniform within the effective area of the mask. Here, the effective area of the mask may be a range of about 142 mm square, for example, in the case of a 6-inch substrate [0042]. The Ra measurement is the arithmetic mean within the sample size. The position of the examiner is that the Ra is representative of the roughness measurement/characterization (Rz) within the center measuring area or edge measuring areas recited in the claims. The position of the examiner is that the treatment with a mixture of ozone and ethylene for 10 minutes and heating at 60 degrees C occurs across the entire surface and the reduction in the roughness would inherently be similar. The position of the examiner is that the mask after the treatment yields a surface where the reported Ra of 0.46 nm is representative of the entire surface and is inherently has less than 20% roughness nonuniformity. Similarly, as the treatment across the surface of the light shielding layer is the same, the type of roughness microstructure after the treatment with a mixture of ozone and ethylene for 10 minutes and heating at 60 degrees C in the center and edge regions would be the same.
Additionally, the data of the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with the coverage sought which embraces all (actual/absolute) values of Rz (nm) as well as all absolute/actual (nm) values of the Rz difference.
In the response of 10/13/2025, the applicant argues that the reference does not measure the roughness at center and edge regions or describe the difference in the thickness being 2% or less. The data in the instant specification does not include a comparison where the heating is similar (no radiative heating, but the resistive heating occurs for a longer period of time and/or at higher temperature), followed by a gaseous treatment to the entire top surface which is evidenced to reduce the roughness of the top surface. It is not clear that the comparative examples are equivalent or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art, when the equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139].
In the response of 3/4/2026, the applicant argues that the none of the references describe the different measuring spots on the light shielding film, describe the low roughness non-uniformity across the surface or a light shielding film comprising CrO, CrON, CrOCN and combinations thereof.. The examiner responds that Sakai et al. JP 2013257593 teaches a CrOCN/CrN/CrOCN light shield (tri)layer, so the layer comprises CrO, CrON and CrOCN as comprising allows for other unrecited elements/layer. The measuring spots are locations on the light shielding layer surface and there are no actual artifacts from the measurement as the measurement is a non-contact measurement (see the specification at [000174]). The position of the examiner is that Sakai et al. JP 2013257593 teaches heating the substrate after the deposition and ozone treatment demonstrably reduce the roughness of the CrCON surface, so it is not clear that the comparative example relied upon is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. This position of the examiner is that the ozone treatment for 10 minutes and heating at 60 degrees C for 30 minutes in Nam et al. 20170023854 is a supplementary heating having the same effect as the IR supplementary heating of inventive examples. Example 2 increases the ozone treatment time to 30 minutes. The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139]. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nam et al. 20170023854, as evidenced by Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296
Nam et al. 20170023854.teaches a substrate coated with a 65 nm MoSi based phase shift layer which was then heated at 350 degrees C for 30 minutes and then overcoated with a 50 nm MoCrON light shielding layer which was heated at 350 degrees for 30 minutes and then coated with a photoresist and patterned [0126-0136].
The instant examples use thermal annealing during the deposition (except in the comparative examples). The examiner holds that the anneals after deposition achieves the same result.
In response to the arguments of the applicant, the examiner points out that the heating at 350 degrees C for 30 minutes is within the 200-400 degrees C range disclosed and slightly higher than the 300 degrees C for 30 minutes (with supplementary IR heating) used in the instant examples. The heating at 350 degrees C for 30 minutes after the formation of the light shielding layer is 100 degrees higher and 15 minutes longer than the treatment used in the instant specification (which also uses supplementary IR heating) (see example 1 of the instant specification [00167-00170). The examiner holds that the thermal treatments are equivalent
In the response of 10/13/2025, the applicant argues that the reference does not measure the roughness at center and edge regions or describe the difference in the thickness being 2% or less. The data in the instant specification does not include a comparison where the heating is similar (no radiative heating, but the resistive heating occurs for a longer period of time and/or at higher temperature). It is not clear that the comparative examples are equivalent or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art, when the equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139]. The examiners are for a MoSi based phase shift film with a CrON/CrN light shading layer and does not reasonably address prior art photomask blanks which have different phase shift and/or light shielding layer compositions.
In the response of 3/4/2026, the applicant argues that the none of the references describe the different measuring spots on the light shielding film, describe the low roughness non-uniformity across the surface or a light shielding film comprising CrO, CrON, CrOCN and combinations thereof.. The examiner responds that Nam et al. 20170023854 teaches a MoCrON which inherently blocks a portion of the light., so the layer comprises CrO and CrON as comprising allows for other unrecited elements. The measuring spots are locations on the light shielding layer surface and there are no actual artifacts from the measurement as the measurement is a non-contact measurement (see the specification at [000174]). The position of the examiner is that Nam et al. 20170023854 teaches heating the substrate after the deposition, at a temperature which is 100 degrees higher and 15 minutes longer than that of the comparative example, so it is not clear that the comparative example relied upon is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. This position of the examiner is that the heating at 350 degrees C for 30 minutes in Nam et al. 20170023854 is a supplementary heating having the same effect as the IR supplementary heating of inventive examples. The equivalence of heating using infrared heating, resistance heating and the like is established in the art in Matsuhasi et al. 20210173296 at [0139]. The rejection stands.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
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 on 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 April 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights