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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 September 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9 September 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 4 to recite that when the absorption layer (or absorption pattern layer) consists of indium, nitrogen, and one or more of the elements recited by claims 1 and 4, the total content of the one or more elements is 10 at% or more and 30 at% or less. Applicant argues that the previously cited art (KR ‘191) fails to teach or suggest an absorption layer according to claims 1 and 4, as amended. Applicant first argues that KR ‘191 specifies the ratio of Pt to the additional metal (indium) and the ratio of the total metal content to the total light element content, which is different that the other element content and the (N/In) ratio. Applicant’s second argument is that the examples in KR ‘191 do not use an absorption film containing indium, and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be prompted to optimize ranges associated with indium. Applicant’s third argument is that the total combination of: In + N content is 70 at% to 90%; N/In ratio is 0.5 to 1.5; total content of additional elements is 10 at% to 30 at%; and a film thickness of the absorption film is 17 to 45 nm is not taught or suggested by KR ‘191. These arguments will be addressed individually below.
Applicant’s first argument is that KR ‘191 teaches the ratio of Pt to In and the ratio of the total metal content to the total light element content, which differs from the claimed content amounts. KR ‘191 teaches that the absorption film comprises Pt and one or more metals selected from a list that includes indium (In) and may further include a light element such as nitrogen (N) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0043 of the English translation). Thus, KR ‘191 suggests an absorption layer comprising In, N, and Pt, which are all recited by claims 1 and 4 of the instant application. The In:Pt ratio is between 95at%:5at% to 5at%:95at% (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation). The ratio of the N:(Total Metal) is 9:1 to 2:8 (KR ‘191, paragraph 0046 of the English translation). The inventive examples (see Table 1) do not utilize indium, but do demonstrate NiPt alloys at various Ni:Pt ratios (5:5, 7:3, 9:1). As the Pt content decreases, the film thickness similarly decreases to yield comparable reflectivity at 13.5 nm and 193 nm exposure wavelengths. This is consistent with the teachings of paragraph 0045 of the English translation of KR ‘191, which states that including a metallic element having a higher extinction coefficient than Pt (such as In) allows for a thinner absorption layer to be obtained. Furthermore, paragraph 0046 of the English translation of KR ‘191 teaches that the nitrogen content relative to total metal is at least 20 at% and at most 90 at%. A person having ordinary skill in the art, given the disclosure of KR ‘191, could thus readily envision a InPtN absorption film that satisfies the content ratios defined by claims 1 and 4 of the instant application. For example, a film comprising 40 at% In, 20 at% Pt, and 40 at% N would provide a (N/In) ratio of 1.0 and a total content of the one or more other elements of 20 at%. In terms of the language used by KR ‘191, this film would have a 67at%:33at% In:Pt ratio and a N:(Total Metal) ratio of 40at%:60at%. The Examiner notes that many other content ratios enabled by KR ‘191 would yield a InPtN absorption film that renders obvious the invention according to instant claims 1 and 4. The broader disclosure of KR ‘191 provides overlapping ranges of contents of each component that overlaps with the claimed range, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s second argument is that the examples in KR ‘191 do not use an absorption film containing indium, and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not be prompted to optimize ranges associated with indium. However, the broader teachings of KR ‘191 (refer to paragraph 0045 of the English translation) state that the benefits of higher extinction coefficient elements in combination with the platinum is beneficial for reducing the thickness of the absorption layer. Indium is described as one such suitable metal, along with nickel (which is used in the inventive examples). MPEP 2123 states that the entire disclosure of the prior art must be considered and that nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art. In this case, an absorption layer comprising In, Pt, and N is considered an alternative or nonpreferred embodiment of KR ‘191’s disclosure. Nonetheless, the broader disclosure provides teaching and motivation to optimize ranges when indium is included in the absorption film. Therefore, Applicant’s argument in this regard is not considered persuasive.
Applicant’s third argument is that the total combination of: In + N content is 70 at% to 90%; N/In ratio is 0.5 to 1.5; total content of additional elements is 10 at% to 30 at%; and a film thickness of the absorption film is 17 to 45 nm is not taught or suggested by KR ‘191. The Examiner believes that the first three aspects have been addressed above. Furthermore, KR ‘191 states that the thickness of the absorption film has a thickness of 30 nm to 70 nm (KR ‘191, paragraph 0052 of the English translation), which is an overlapping range with the claimed layer thickness. Therefore, per MPEP 2144.05 I., a prima facie case of obviousness exists for this feature. Further, KR ‘191 teaches that thickness can be reduced by increasing other metal (e.g. indium) content (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation and Table 1). Whilst the Applicant’s examples in Table 1 have been considered, the Examiner notes that the data provided is insufficient to support an argument of unexpected results, as outlined by MPEP 716.02. For instance, the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention (MPEP 716.02(d)), but the results provided by the Applicant do not encapsulate the entire scope of the claimed invention. The results provided fail to establish criticality of the claimed ranges. The provided results only show two examples wherein the absorption layer comprises In, N, and one other elements, and one of these examples is not within the scope of the claimed invention (InTaN). The results fail to demonstrate that results hold within the entirety of the claimed ranges and are overall lacking to represent the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not considered to be persuasive.
Applicant presents one additional argument that KR ‘191 does not expressly disclose or identify the claimed other element content. However, the effect on Pt content in the absorption layer is taught by KR ‘191 (Table 1 and paragraph 0045 of the English translation) and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that balancing the In and Pt contents provides a balance between film thickness and chemical resistance (KR ‘191, paragraph 0044 of the English translation). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the content of Pt in the absorption layer taught by KR ‘191.
With the above considered, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection is not withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20170021191 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘191).
Regarding Claim 1, KR ‘191 teaches a mask blank for EUV lithography and a photomask formed from the same. The mask blank comprises a transparent substrate (202), a multilayer reflective film (204), and an absorption film (212) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0032 of the English translation and Fig. 3). The reflective multilayer film is formed by alternatively stacking layers of molybdenum (Mo) and silicon (Si) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0035 of the English translation). The thickness of the absorption film is between 30 nm and 70 nm, in order to obtain satisfactory reflectivity for the exposure light and critical dimension uniformity (KR ‘191, paragraph 0052 of the English translation). The absorption film is formed of a high extinction coefficient (k) material, such as a platinum-based material including one or more metal materials (defined by KR ‘191 as M) selected from nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), zinc (Zn), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), silver (Ag), indium (In), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0042-0043 of the English translation). The absorption film may further include one or might light elements, such as nitrogen (N) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0043 and 0046 of the English translation). The composition ratio of the metal material (M) with respect to the platinum (Pt) (the ratio being M:Pt) is 95%:5% to 5%:95%, wherein the percentages represent atomic% (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation). Further, the light element has a content ratio of 9:1 to 2:8 relative to the metal (KR ‘191, paragraph 0046 of the English translation).
However, KR ‘191 does not explicitly disclose an absorption film consisting of indium and nitrogen or consisting of indium, nitrogen, and one or more of the elements recited by instant claim 1, wherein the ratio of N/In is between 0.5 and 1.5. However, KR ‘191 suggests an absorption layer comprising indium, platinum, and nitrogen (see KR ‘191, paragraph 0043 of the English translation). KR ‘191 further teaches that the In:Pt ratio can be within 95at%:5at% to 5at%:95at% (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation) and the nitrogen content ratio with respect to the metal is 9:1 to 2:8 (KR ‘191, paragraph 0046 of the English translation). The ranges of the contents of the different elements in the absorption film taught by KR ‘191 overlap with the elemental contents recited by the instant application’s claims, and thus present a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 I. For instance, the ranges taught in paragraphs 0045-0046 of the English translation of KR ‘191 allow for a InPtN film comprising equal parts indium, tantalum, and nitrogen (33.3 atomic% each), which would satisfy the limitations of instant claim 1, as the total content of indium and nitrogen would be over 50 atomic% and the N/In ratio would be 1.0. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to produce an absorption film comprising indium and platinum and adjust the content of these additional metals through routine optimization in order to find a desirable chemical resistance property of the absorption film and to adjust the extinction coefficient (k) to increase the light-blocking ability per unit thickness of the absorption film (see KR ‘191, paragraph 0044 of the English translation). Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the invention of claim 1 of the instant application is prima facie obvious in view of KR ‘191.
Regarding Claim 3, KR ‘191 discloses that the mask blank may further include a capping film (206) provided between the multilayer reflective film (204) and the absorbing film (212) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0032 of the English translation and Fig. 3). The capping film is preferably formed of ruthenium, niobium, or compounds containing one or both of these metals (KR ‘191, paragraph 0038 of the English translation).
Regarding Claim 4, KR ‘191 teaches a mask blank for EUV lithography and a photomask formed from the same. The mask blank comprises a transparent substrate (202), a multilayer reflective film (204), and an absorption film (212) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0032 of the English translation and Fig. 3). The reflective multilayer film is formed by alternatively stacking layers of molybdenum (Mo) and silicon (Si) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0035 of the English translation). The thickness of the absorption film is between 30 nm and 70 nm, in order to obtain satisfactory reflectivity for the exposure light and critical dimension uniformity (KR ‘191, paragraph 0052 of the English translation). The absorption film is formed of a high extinction coefficient (k) material, such as a platinum-based material including one or more metal materials (defined by KR ‘191 as M) selected from nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), zinc (Zn), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), silver (Ag), indium (In), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0042-0043 of the English translation). The absorption film may further include one or might light elements, such as nitrogen (N) (KR ‘191, paragraph 0043 and 0046 of the English translation). The composition ratio of the metal material (M) with respect to the platinum (Pt) (the ratio being M:Pt) is 95%:5% to 5%:95%, wherein the percentages represent atomic% (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation). Further, the light element has a content ratio of 9:1 to 2:8 relative to the metal (KR ‘191, paragraph 0046 of the English translation). The specification of KR ‘191 teaches that the mask blank described above can be made into an EUV photomask (KR ‘191, paragraph 0026 of the English translation), which is done by patterning the absorption film layer (KR ‘191, paragraphs 0039 and 0056 of the English translation and Fig. 1, which shows a patterned absorber layer).
However, KR ‘191 does not explicitly disclose an absorption film consisting of indium and nitrogen or consisting of indium, nitrogen, and one or more of the elements recited by instant claim 4, wherein the ratio of N/In is between 0.5 and 1.5. However, KR ‘191 suggests an absorption layer comprising indium, platinum, and nitrogen (see KR ‘191, paragraph 0043 of the English translation). KR ‘191 further teaches that the In:Pt ratio can be within 95at%:5at% to 5at%:95at% (KR ‘191, paragraph 0045 of the English translation) and the nitrogen content ratio with respect to the metal is 9:1 to 2:8 (KR ‘191, paragraph 0046 of the English translation). The ranges of the contents of the different elements in the absorption film taught by KR ‘191 overlap with the elemental contents recited by the instant application’s claims, and thus present a prima facie case of obviousness, per MPEP 2144.05 I. For instance, the ranges taught in paragraphs 0045-0046 of the English translation of KR ‘191 allow for a InPtN film comprising equal parts indium, tantalum, and nitrogen (33.3 atomic% each), which would satisfy the limitations of instant claim 4, as the total content of indium and nitrogen would be over 50 atomic% and the N/In ratio would be 1.0. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to produce an absorption film comprising indium and platinum and adjust the content of these additional metals through routine optimization in order to find a desirable chemical resistance property of the absorption film and to adjust the extinction coefficient (k) to increase the light-blocking ability per unit thickness of the absorption film (see KR ‘191, paragraph 0044 of the English translation). Refer to MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the invention of claim 4 of the instant application is prima facie obvious in view of KR ‘191.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
