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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2 and 5-6 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 16 April 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of KR 20170021191 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘191).
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 4 to recited that the absorption layer (or absorption pattern layer) consists of indium and nitrogen, or consists of indium, nitrogen, and one or more of the elements recited by the aforementioned claims. Applicant argues that the previously cited art (KR ‘852) fails to teach or suggest an absorption layer consisting of indium and nitrogen or consisting of indium, nitrogen, and one or more of the listed elements by claims 1 and 4. Upon review of KR ‘852, the Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive, as KR ‘852 teaches indium with palladium, tantalum, or tellurium, but does not suggest the elements recited by instant claims 1 and 4. Therefore, the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of KR 20170021191 A (hereby referred to as KR ‘191), as explained below.
Applicant additionally argues that the content ratio of the light element with respect to the metal taught by KR ‘852 fails to render the (N/In) ratio of claims 1 and 4 obvious due to the In:Metal ratio being 95:5 to 5:95 (based on atomic%), which Applicant argues is an overly broad range. MPEP 2144.05 I. states that “…if the reference’s disclosed range is so broad as to encompass a very large number of possible distinct compositions, this might present a situation analogous to the obviousness of a species when the prior art broadly discloses a genus.” However, MPEP 2144.05 I. also states that “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Additionally, MPEP 2131.03 II. states the following:
“When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, a case by case determination must be made as to anticipation. In order to anticipate the claims, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute." What constitutes a "sufficient specificity" is fact dependent. If the claims are directed to a narrow range, and the reference teaches a broader range, other facts of the case, must be considered when determining whether the narrow range is disclosed with "sufficient specificity" to constitute an anticipation of the claims. Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006).[AltContent: rect]
In ClearValue, the claim at issue was directed to a process of clarifying water with alkalinity below 50 ppm, whereas the prior art taught that the same process works for systems with alkalinity of 150 ppm or less. In holding the claim anticipated, the court observed that "there is no allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range." Id. at 1345, 101 USPQ2d at 1777. In Atofina, the court held that a reference temperature range of 100-500 degrees C did not describe the claimed range of 330-450 degrees C with sufficient specificity to be anticipatory, even though there was a slight overlap between the reference’s preferred range (150-350 degrees C) and the claimed range. "[T]he disclosure of a range is no more a disclosure of the end points of the range than it is each of the intermediate points." Id. at 1000, 78 USPQ2d at 1424. Patentee described claimed temperature range as "critical" to enable the process to operate effectively, and showed that one of ordinary skill would have expected the synthesis process to operate differently outside the claimed range. [AltContent: rect]
If the prior art disclosure does not disclose a claimed range with "sufficient specificity" to anticipate a claimed invention, any evidence of unexpected results within the narrow range may render the claims nonobvious. See MPEP § 716.02 et seq. The question of "sufficient specificity" is similar to that of "clearly envisaging" a species from a generic teaching. See MPEP § 2131.02.”
In the case of the instant application, the prior art teaches a broader range of contents for the elemental species contained in the absorption layer material. The prior art range for light elements (e.g. nitrogen), with respect to the metal, is 9:1 to 2:8. In other words, the nitrogen content may be 20 atomic% up to 90 atomic%, with the metal content making up the balance. By contrast, the (N/In) ratio recited by instant claims 1 and 4 is a value between 0.5 to 1.5, which corresponds to a nitrogen content (with respect to indium) of 33.3 atomic% to 60 atomic%. The Applicant describes how the claimed (N/In) ratio was determined in paragraph 0028 of the instant application’s specification, alleging that above 0.5 provides heat resistance and that 1.5 is the upper limit because a higher nitrogen content film could not be formed. However, the Applicant has not provided any supplemental data to support that the claimed range is critical and/or provides unexpected results compared to the broader range taught by the prior art. Thus, per MPEP 2131.03 II., the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie obviousness established by the prior art. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments in this regard are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 4 have been amended in response to the office action filed 16 January 2026. However, these claims have their status identifier labeled as “(Original)” rather than “(Currently amended)”, as required by MPEP 714 II. C. Claim 3 is objected to due to claim 3 depending from a parent claim that has been objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights