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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/06/2025.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “search for prior art related to claim 1 will also search for prior art related to claim 21”. This argument is persuasive in view of Applicant’s newly filed claim 21 (and cancellation of claim 15), which requires all of the limitations of claim 1 and thereby limits the search of claim 21 to an apparatus having the means for performing the method of claim 1.
The requirement is therefore WITHDRAWN, and claims 1-16 and 18-21 are herein examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Here, because each limitation of claim 21 includes “means for” language, by viture of the preamble, and is being they are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and failing to cure the deficiency thereof.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the third gaseous component” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis. Its appears the claim should depend from claim 8, which introduces “supplying a third gaseous component”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “more particularly of electrons” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 13, broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation, “lower at least by a factor of 2”, and the claim also recites, “preferably by a factor of 5, more preferably a factor of 10”, each of which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 14, broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation, “a respective layer thickness of the first and second layers is in a range of 3 - 50 nm”, and the claim also recites, “preferably 3 - 20 nm, more preferably 5 - 10 nm, very preferably 5 - 8 nm”, each of which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 15, broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation, “1 eV - 100 keV”, and the claim also recites, “preferably of 3 eV - 30 keV, more preferably of 10 eV - 10 keV, very preferably of 30 eV - 3 keV, more preferably still of 100 eV - 1 keV”, each of which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Budach et al. (US 20200249564 A1).
As to claim 1, Budach discloses a method for the particle beam-induced etching of a lithography mask, more particularly a non-transmissive EUV lithography mask, [claim 15; para. 0004] having the steps of:
a) providing the lithography mask in a process atmosphere [claim 15, “precursor gas”; para. 0042, para. 0078, para. 0097],
b) beaming a focused particle beam onto a target position on the lithography mask [claim 15, “b.”; para. 0028, para. 0114],
c) supplying at least one first gaseous component to the target position in the process atmosphere [claim 15, “a.”; para. 0042-43, para. 0115], where the first gaseous component can be converted by activation into a reactive form [para. 0043, para. 0115], where the reactive form reacts with a material of the lithography mask to form a volatile compound [para. 0043, para. 0115], and
d) supplying at least one second gaseous component to the target position in the process atmosphere [para. 0042, para. 0044-45, para. 0112], where the second gaseous component comprises a compound of silicon with oxygen, nitrogen and/or carbon [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”; para. 0112, para. 0149],
wherein steps c) and d) are carried out temporally before and/or synchronously to step b) [claim 15; para. 0042].
As to claim 2, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the second gaseous component comprises a silicate [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”; para. 0112, para. 0149], a silane, a siloxane, a silazane and/or a silicon isocyanate.
As to claim 3, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the second gaseous component under predetermined process conditions with exposure to the particle beam forms a deposit comprising a compound of silicon with oxygen, nitrogen and/or carbon [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”, para. 0112-113, para. 0149].
As to claim 4, Budach discloses the method of Claim 3, wherein a deposit formed by the second gaseous component during the etching process is removed in a step of wet-chemical cleaning of the lithography mask [para. 0124, para. 0148].
As to claim 6, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the supplying of the second gaseous component takes place temporally before and/or after the beaming of the particle beam onto the target position [claim 15; para. 0042, para. 0149].
As to claim 7, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the supplying of the second gaseous component takes place during the beaming of the particle beam onto the target position [claim 15; para. 0042, para. 0149].
As to claim 8, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, including: supplying a third gaseous component, which comprises an oxidizing agent and/or a reducing agent [claim 15; para. 0042, para. 0046].
As to claim 9, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the supplying of the first gaseous component, the second gaseous component and/or the third gaseous component comprises:
providing a solid or liquid phase of the respective component, setting a temperature of the solid or liquid phase of the respective component such as to attain a mandated vapor pressure of the respective component over the solid or liquid phase, and supplying the respective gaseous component into the process atmosphere via a respective supply line [para. 0118-119].
As to claim 10, Budach discloses the method of Claim 9, wherein a mass flow rate and/or volume flow 10. rate of the respective component is controlled by setting a line cross section of the respective supply line and/or by controlling a duty cycle of a closing valve [para. 0117].
As to claim 11, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the particle beam consists of charged particles, more particularly of electrons [para. 0048; para. 0077, para. 0097].
As to claim 12, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the lithography mask is embodied for use in EUV lithography [claim 15; para. 0004, para. 0078].
As to claim 15, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the particle beam has an energy of 1 eV - 100 keV, preferably of 3 eV - 30 keV, more preferably of 10 eV - 10 keV, very preferably of 30 eV - 3 keV, more preferably still of 100 eV - 1 keV [para. 0032, “most preferably 0.1 keV to 1 keV”, which provides sufficient specificity as to the claimed range as to anticipated the claimed range].
As to claim 16, Budach discloses a lithography mask [claim 14; para. 0004], more particularly a non-transmissive EUV lithography mask, produced by a method of Claim 1 [claim 15; para. 0004, para. 0078, para. 0115; See also, rejection of claim 1].
As to claim 21, Budach discloses an apparatus configured to perform particle beam-induced etching of a lithography mask [claim 1; claim 15; para. 0004, para. 0078, para. 0115] comprising means for:
a) providing the lithography mask in a process atmosphere [claim 15, “precursor gas”; para. 0042, para. 0078, para. 0097 para. 0121],
b) beaming a focused particle beam onto a target position on the lithography mask [claim 1; claim 15, “b.”; para. 0028, para. 0114],
c) supplying at least one first gaseous component to the target position in the process atmosphere [claim ; claim 15, “a.”; para. 0042-43, para. 0115], where the first gaseous component can be converted by activation into a reactive form [para. 0043, para. 0115], where the reactive form reacts with a material of the lithography mask to form a volatile compound [para. 0043, para. 0115], and
d) supplying at least one second gaseous component to the target position in the process atmosphere [claim 1; para. 0042, para. 0044-45, para. 0112], where the second gaseous component comprises a compound of silicon with oxygen, nitrogen and/or carbon [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”, para. 0112, para. 0149],
wherein steps c) and d) are carried out temporally before and/or synchronously to step b) [claim 1; claim 15; para. 0042, para. 0149].
As to claim 18, Budach discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the second gaseous component comprises a silicate [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”; para. 0112, para. 0149], a silane, a siloxane, a silazane and/or a silicon isocyanate.
As to claim 19, Budach discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, wherein the second gaseous component under predetermined process conditions with exposure to the particle beam forms a deposit comprising a compound of silicon with oxygen, nitrogen and/or carbon [para. 0045, “tetraethyl orthosilicate”; para. 0112, para. 0149].
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 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budach et al. (US 20200249564 A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 above.
As to claim 5, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose an embodiment comprising:
wherein the first gaseous component comprises one of xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, nitrogen trifluoride NF3, phosphorus trifluoride PF3 [para. 0043], tungsten hexafluoride WF6, tungsten hexachloride WC16, molybdenum hexafluoride MoF6, hydrogen fluoride HF, nitrogen oxygen fluoride NOF, triphosphorus trinitrogen hexafluoride P3N3F6.
However, Budach discloses xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, and phosphorus trifluoride PF3 [para. 0043] as suitable etching gases for use with the precursor gases [para. 0042-45], and further provides a narrower example of xenon difluoride (XeF.sub.2), a halogen or nitrosyl chloride (NOCl) [para. 0115].
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 modify the method of supplying an etching gas, of Budach, to supply xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, or phosphorus trifluoride PF3, because they are effective etching gases, in combination with the disclosed precursor and additive gases, as taught by Budach [para. 0042-45].
As to claim 20, Budach discloses the apparatus of Claim 21, but fails to explicitly disclose an embodiment comprising:
wherein the first gaseous component comprises one of xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, nitrogen trifluoride NF3, phosphorus trifluoride PF3 [para. 0043], tungsten hexafluoride WF6, tungsten hexachloride WC16, molybdenum hexafluoride MoF6, hydrogen fluoride HF, nitrogen oxygen fluoride NOF, triphosphorus trinitrogen hexafluoride P3N3F6.
However, Budach discloses xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, and phosphorus trifluoride PF3 [para. 0043] as suitable etching gases for use with the precursor gases [para. 0042-45] and further provides a narrower example of xenon difluoride (XeF.sub.2), a halogen or nitrosyl chloride (NOCl) [para. 0115].
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 modify the method of supplying an etching gas, of Budach, to supply xenon difluoride XeF2, sulfur hexafluoride SF6, sulfur tetrafluoride SF4, or phosphorus trifluoride PF3, because they are effective etching gases, in combination with the disclosed precursor and additive gases, as taught by Budach [para. 0042-45].
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Budach et al. (US 20200249564 A1), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-12, and 15-16 above, in view of Chu (US 20140113220 A1).
As to claim 13, Budach discloses the method of Claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the lithography mask has an etch stop layer whose facing side carries a structured lamina composed of a material which is absorbent for the radiation used in a lithography process, where an etching rate of the activated first gaseous component in relation to the etch stop layer is lower at least by a factor of 2, preferably by a factor of 5, more preferably a factor of 10, than the etching rate in relation to the structured lamina.
However, Chu discloses a lithography mask having an etch stop layer whose facing side has a structured lamina composed of a material which is absorbent for the radiation used in a lithography process [para. 0022-26; Figs. 3A-3B].
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 modify the method of processing a photolithographic EUV mask, of Budach, to include processing photolithographic EUV masks having a laminate structure, of Chu, because they are comprised of materials suitable to be etched by the process of Budach, as taught by Chu [para. 0024-26].
As to claim 14, Budach discloses the method of Claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the lithography mask has a mirror layer embodied as a multilayer mirror composed of a plurality of double layers, where a respective double layer comprises a first layer composed of a first chemical composition and a second layer composed of a second chemical composition, where a respective layer thickness of the first and second layers is in a range of 3 - 50 nm, preferably 3 - 20 nm, more preferably 5 - 10 nm, very preferably 5 - 8 nm.
However, Chu discloses a lithography mask having an etch stop layer whose facing side has a structured lamina composed of a material which is absorbent for the radiation used in a lithography process [para. 0022-26; Figs. 3A-3B].
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 modify the method of processing a photolithographic EUV mask, of Budach, to include processing photolithographic EUV masks having a laminate structure of conventional thicknesses, of Chu, because they are comprised of materials suitable to be etched by the process of Budach, as taught by Chu [para. 0024-26].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: The additionally cited references are cited to show etching methods and apparatus for processing lithography masks including gaseous reactant comprising silicon-containing compounds and/or etchants [Abstracts].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M REMAVEGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER REMAVEGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1713