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 § 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.
Claims 7-9, 13-15, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Wojtecki et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0391494; hereafter ‘494).
Claim 7: ‘494 is directed towards EUV patterning of monolayers for selective ALD (title) to form an ALD mask on a substrate (ZnO deposited by ALD which can be used as a mask, see ¶s 42, 67, & 93-97; as noted in the Specification, ZnO masks read on a EUV mask), the method comprising:
depositing a surfactant on a substrate, wherein the surfactant self-aligns on a surface of the substrate to form a monolayer (see abstract);
exposing the monolayer to a patternwise EUV radiation to form a resist pattern (abstract); and
depositing an EUV absorbing material onto the monolayer wherein the EUV absorbing material binds to the non-polar tail groups in unexposed areas of the monolayer to form a negative patterned EUV mask (abstract & ¶ 36).
Claim 8: Wherein the substrate is a metal capped substrate (¶ 62) and the surface has 3-24 C atoms, a polar head group that chelates to the metal cap of the substrate, and a non-polar tail that binds to the EUV absorbing material in a negative tone pattern (¶s 32-34, 44-56, & 88; two different hydroxamic acids derived from stearic acid).
Claim 9: The SAM has crosslinked and non-crosslinked regions (the patterning crosslinks the SAM, ¶s 22 & 35), wherein the EUV absorbing material only binds to the non-crosslinked regions of the SAM in a negative tone pattern (abstract & ¶ 41).
Claim 13: ‘494 is directed towards EUV patterning of monolayers for selective ALD (title) to form an ALD mask on a substrate (ZnO deposited by ALD which can be used as a mask, see ¶s 42, 67, & 93-97; as noted in the Specification, ZnO masks read on a EUV mask), the method comprising:
depositing a hydroxamic acid comprising a polar head group and a non-polar tail (¶s 32-34, 44-56, & 88; two different hydroxamic acids derived from stearic acid) on a substrate comprising a metal surface (¶ 62), wherein the hydroxamic acid self-aligns to form a monolayer via reaction of the polar head group of the hydroxamic acid with the metal surface of the substrate (see abstract);
exposing the monolayer to a patternwise EUV radiation to form a resist pattern (abstract), wheiren regions of the monolayer exposed to the EUV radiation are crosslinked and the regions not exposed to the EUV radiation are uncrosslinked (the patterning crosslinks the SAM, ¶s 22 & 35); and
depositing an EUV absorbing material onto the monolayer wherein the EUV absorbing material binds to the nonpolar tail of the hydroxamic acid on the unexposed and uncrosslinked regions of the monolayer to form a negative patterned EUV mask (abstract & ¶s 36 & 41).
Claim 14: The metal surface of the substrate is copper (¶ 37).
Claim 15: The hydroxamic acid is octadecyl hydroxamic acid (¶ 20).
Claim 18: A combination of hydroxamic acids can be used wherein the two hydroxamic acids are stearic acid derivatives (¶s 52 & 88).
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 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.
Claims 12 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘494 as applied above, and further in view of Nam (US PG Pub 2007/0000860; hereafter ‘860).
Claims 12 & 19: The mask material is ZnO (¶s 42 & 92-97) and ‘494 teaches that the film can be metal or metal oxides (¶ 3).
‘494 does not teach that the ALD film is selected from the group consisting of Pt, Te, Zn, Ti, Sb, In, Bi, and Ag.
However, ‘860, which is also directed towards mask materials for etching (abstract and ¶s 24 & 26) teaches that ZnO & Zn are art recognized mask materials for etching (¶ 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘860 into ‘494 and use Zn in place of ZnO as the ALD film because Zn & ZnO are art recognized alternative mask materials for etching and Zn would have predictably been suitable as the mask in ‘494.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘494 as applied above, and further in view of Wojtecki et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0322812; hereafter ‘812).
Claim 16: ’494 does not teach that the hydroxamic acid comprises reactive groups selected from the group consisting of alkenes, alkynes, glycidyls and combinations thereof.
However, ‘812, which is also directed towards crosslinkable self-assembled monolayers for use in ALD film forming (title) discloses using a hydroxamic acid (¶ 51) with a tail group comprising alkene groups (¶s 43 & 57) for forming masked portions of a surface prior to ALD film formation (¶ 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘812 into the process of ‘494 such that the tail groups of the hydroxamic acid SAM forming molecules comprise alkenes in the tail group because hydroxamic acid SAM forming molecules comprising alkenes in the tail groups are recognized in the art as suitable for forming masks for ALD and thus would have been suitable for forming the masks of ‘494.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘494 as applied above, and further in view of Krishtab et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0375615; hereafter ‘615).
Claim 17: ‘494 teaches selectively etching the crosslinked regions of the monolayer from the negative tone EUV mask by O2 plasma etching (¶ 83).
‘494 does not teach etching with a reducing agent.
However, ‘615, which is directed towards using forming a mask on a surface by patterning a SAM of hydroxamic acid and then forming a film by ALD over the pattern by selective deposition (i.e. the same process of ‘494; see title, abstract, ¶s 3-5 & 42-77, and Fig. 1) teaches that the structure can be etched using a reducing agent, such as H2, in combination with an O2 plasma (see ¶ 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘615 into the process and use a combination of H2 and O2 as the etchant gases when plasma etching the structure of ‘494 because ‘615 teaches that it a combination of H2 and O2 gases are art recognized gas species for plasma etching the same materials and thus would have predictably suitable for etching the structure of ‘494.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that EUV mask has a special definition; applicant is advised that ¶41 only requires a photolithography thin film that has a EUV absorbing layer deposited on top of multiple layers of an EUV substrate material; a pattern defined on the EUV absorbing layer: and a surface that reflects light off of the patterned areas of the EUV absorbing layer and as noted above, the structure of ‘494 reads on this definition because the patterned structure is comprised of a EUV top layer that is patterned (area-selective deposited ZnO layer) on a multilayer of SAM and substrate and the surface will have some degree of reflection.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘494 does not teach “depositing an EUV absorbing material that binds to non-polar tail groups to form a patterned EUV mask”; the Office does not find this argument convincing because as discussed above, ‘494 teaches forming a self-assembled monolayer with hydroxamic acid and selectively depositing ZnO on the surface wherein the ZnO is deposited on the SAM (see above and abstract, Figs. 1A-1D). The ZnO layer is deposited on the SAM tailgroups and thus are bond to some degree because the layer is formed.
Applicant is advised that ‘494 teaches that the SAM is formed by binding the headgroup of the amphiphilic molecule to the substrate and the hydrophobic tailgroup is top surface of the SAM (see ¶ 32) and thus it is apparent that the surface upon which the ZnO EUV mask layer is deposited on is the tail groups of the amphiphile and as taught by ¶ 32, the tail group is a nonpolar tail group.
Conclusion
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights