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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/274183 by Kazutake Taniguchi.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3, 6, 8-12, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Shin et al. (US 2021/0132487 A1), herein referred to as Shin.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Shin teaches ([0016-0018, 0047-0048] and Figure 1 shown below) a blankmask (mask blank) 100 comprising a transparent substrate 102, a reflection film (multilayer reflective film) 104 and an absorbing film (pattern-forming thin film) 108.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shin further teaches [0064 and 0068-0069] the absorbing film can be configured to contain tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb) and nitrogen (N). With further regard to claim 10, Shin also teaches the absorber layer of the blankmask can be subsequently patterned after the blankmask is manufactured, thereby forming (Claim 25) a photomask (reflective mask) for extreme ultraviolet lithography applications.
Shin does not explicitly teach the limitations recited in claims 1 and 10 directed to “an X-ray diffraction pattern obtained by analyzing the thin film by Out-of-Plane measurement of X-ray diffraction satisfies the relationship of at least one of Imax1/Iavg1≤7.0 and Imax2/Iavg2≤1.0, where Imax1 is a maximum value of diffraction intensity at a diffraction angle 2θ in a range of 34 to 36 degrees, Iavg1 is an average value of diffraction intensity at a diffraction angle 2θ in a range of 32 to 34 degrees, Imax2 is a maximum value of diffraction intensity at a diffraction angle 2θ in a range of 40 to 42 degrees, and Iavg2 is an average value of diffraction intensity at a diffraction angle 2θ in a range of 38 to 40 degrees”.
However, Examiner relies on MPEP Chapter 2112.01 Section I which states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In the instant application, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established because Shin teaches the structural and compositional components of the claimed mask blank and reflective mask as recited in claims 1 and 10 respectively.
Examiner also notes that the step of performing an X-ray diffraction measurement step on the pattern-forming thin film in claim 1 and the thin film with the transfer pattern in claim 10 does not further limit the structure or composition of the mask blank recited in claim 1 or the reflective mask recited in claim 10.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Shin does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations recited in claims 2 and 11 directed to “a diffraction angle 2θ within a range of 30 degrees or more and 50 degrees or less in the X-ray diffraction pattern, the thin film has a maximum diffraction intensity at a diffraction angle 2θ of 38 degrees or less”.
However, Examiner relies on MPEP Chapter 2112.01 Section I which states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In the instant application, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established because Shin teaches the structural and compositional components of the claimed mask blank and reflective mask as recited in claims 1 and 10 respectively and therefore would also render the limitations recited in claims 2 and 11 as being anticipated.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Shin teaches [0064] the absorbing film can be configured to include tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb) and nitrogen (N). Assuming each of the tantalum, niobium and nitrogen elements are present in equal amounts in the absorbing film (33.3 atomic percent), the ratio of niobium content to niobium and tantalum content would be less than 0.6 (33.3 percent Nb/(33.3 percent Nb + 33.3 percent tantalum) = 0.5).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Shin teaches [0064] the absorbing film can be configured to further include boron (B).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 17 and 18, Examiner relies on MPEP Chapter 2112.01 Section I which states “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In the instant application, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established because Shin teaches the structural and compositional components of the claimed mask blank and reflective mask as recited in claims 1 and 10 respectively and therefore would also render the limitations recited in claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 as being anticipated.
Regarding claim 20, Shin teaches [0073] a hard mask film (etch mask) can be formed on the absorbing film. The hard mask film may be configured to include chromium (Cr) and at least one of nitrogen (N), oxygen (O), carbon (C) and boron (B).
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 4, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2021/0132487 A1), herein referred to as Shin.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Shin teaches [0030] the absorbing film may be configured to have a content of nitrogen in the range of 1 to 20 atomic percent, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed nitrogen content range.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Shin teaches [0064] the absorbing film can be configured to include tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb) and nitrogen (N). Assuming only those three elements constitute the absorbing film, the total content of tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb) and nitrogen (N) in the absorbing film would amount to 100 atomic percent, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed atomic percent range.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Shin teaches [0064] the absorbing film can be configured to include tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), nitrogen (N) and boron (B). Assuming only those four elements constitute the absorbing film, the total content of tantalum (Ta), niobium (Nb), nitrogen (N) and boron (B) in the absorbing film would amount to 100 atomic percent, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed atomic percent range.
The ranges taught by Shin overlap the claimed ranges in claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 16. In view of MPEP Chapter 2144.05, Section I states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. Since Shin teaches ranges that overlap the claimed ranges recited in claims 4, 5, 7, 13, 14 and 16, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724