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 arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 9 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4, and 5 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 20080259439 A1 (hereby referred to as Shiraishi).
Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 4, and 5 to remove aluminum and zirconium from the list of metals forming an oxide in the SiC or SiN material layer. Applicant argues that the combination of Matsuo and Nam fails to disclose or suggest the reflective mask blank of instant claims 1 and 4, or the reflective mask of instant claim 5, as amended. Particularly, Applicant argues that Matsuo fails to disclose a SiC or SiN protective film in combination with a metal oxide using one of the metals recited by instant claims 1, 4, and/or 5, which the Examiner agrees with. The Applicant further argues that Nam fails to teach or suggest a metal oxide wherein the metal is magnesium, titanium, or yttrium, which the Examiner also agrees with. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive and accordingly the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20080259439 A1 (hereby referred to as Shiraishi), as explained below.
Applicant further argues that Nam does not explicitly teach an aluminum, silicon, oxygen, and carbon/nitrogen protective film, as none of the examples disclosed by Nam use aluminum as a metal oxide component. The Applicant argues that such a teaching to use each of the above elements in the protective film is an improper hindsight reconstruction. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has removed aluminum for the list of claimed metal oxides included with the SiC/SiN material layer, and thus this argument is redundant in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
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, 3, 5, 7-9, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090042110 A1 (hereby referred to as Matsuo) in view of US 20150268552 A1 (hereby referred to as Nam) and US 20080259439 A1 (hereby referred to as Shiraishi).
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 5, Matsuo discloses a reflection type photomask blank and a photomask produced from the same. The reflective mask blank comprises a substrate, a multilayer reflection film formed on the substrate, a protection film formed on the multilayer reflection film, a shock absorbing film formed on the protection film, and an absorber layer formed on the shock absorbing film (Matsuo, paragraph 0045 and Fig. 1). Alternatively, the protection film and the shock absorbing film may be replaced by a single-layer dual-use film which serves as both a protection film and a shock absorbing film (Matsuo, paragraph 0062 and Fig. 4). The dual-use film may also be provided as a dual-layer laminated film (Matsuo, paragraph 0072 and Fig. 7). The reflection type photomask is obtained by forming an exposure transfer pattern in the absorber layer of the reflection type photomask blank (Matsuo, paragraph 0056, 0063, and 0081; see also Figs. 2-3, 5, and 8). The protection film is formed from a compound including Zr and Si (ZrSi), a compound including Zr, Si, and at least one of O or N, or a single element or compound including Ru, C, and/or Y (Matsuo, paragraph 0048).
However, Matsuo does not explicitly disclose a photomask blank or photomask wherein the protective film comprises a SiC or SiN material in combination with a metal oxide. Nam teaches a mask blank and photomask produced from the same. The mask blank comprises a transparent substrate, a light shielding film, a protective film, a hard mask film, and a resist film (Nam, paragraph 0037 and Fig. 1). The protective film includes at least one material selected from molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), aluminum (Al), and silicon (Si), and further includes at least one light element selected from the group consisting of oxygen (O), carbon (C), and nitrogen (N) (Nam, paragraph 0048). In one of the inventive examples (refer to paragraphs 0085 and 0107 of Nam), a protective layer made of MoSiON is utilized. However, the broader disclosure of Nam suggests that the oxygen and/or nitrogen may be replaced with carbon (Nam, paragraph 0048). Thus, Nam teaches and/or suggests a SiC and/or SiN material layer comprising an oxide of a metal.
However, Matsuo and Nam are silent in regards to the metal oxide being an oxide of magnesium (Mg), titanium (Ti), or yttrium (Y). Shiraishi teaches a multilayer film reflective mirror. The multilayer film reflective mirror comprises a substrate (5), a multilayer film capable of reflecting EUV light (4), and a protective layer (6) formed over the top surface of the multilayer film (Shiraishi, paragraph 0088-0089 and Fig. 7). The protective layer may be formed of a material selected from the group of ruthenium alloys, rhodium (Rh), rhodium alloys, niobium (Nb), niobium alloys, platinum (Pt), platinum alloys, molybdenum (Mo), molybdenum alloys, titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), molybdenum disilicide (MoSi2), silicon carbide (SiC), and inorganic oxides such as niobium oxide, and combinations thereof (Shiraishi, paragraph 0096).
Matsuo and Nam are analogous art because both references pertain to masks having protective layers. Shiraishi is analogous art because this reference pertains to protective layers overlying a multilayer reflective film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a protective film comprising SiC or SiN in combination with the oxide of a metal (such as molybdenum), as taught by Nam, in the reflective mask blank and mask taught by Matsuo because such a protective film provides desirable etching properties during patterning of the mask (Nam, paragraph 0047, 0049, and 0051). Furthermore, Shiraishi provides a finite list of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (refer to the above described list of protective layer materials, which may be used in combination) and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would find that a protective layer comprising SiC in combination with titanium dioxide (TiO2) would be obvious to try. Refer to MPEP 2143 I. E. Furthermore, Shiraishi teaches that molybdenum (the metal used by Nam) and ruthenium (the metal used by Matsuo) are functional equivalents to titanium dioxide for protective layers (Shiraishi, paragraph 0096). Therefore, alternatively it would have been obvious to replace the metal component of the protective layer of either Matsuo or Nam with titanium dioxide, and thus arrive at the invention according to instant claims 1, 4, and/or 5.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 14, Matsuo teaches an embodiment wherein the protection film comprises a two-layer laminated film (Matsuo, paragraph 0072 and Figs. 7-8). Matsuo further teaches that the upper layer of the laminated protection film is favorably formed of ruthenium (Ru) (Matsuo, paragraph 0073). The lower layer may be the same materials as the above-described protection film, wherein the properties of the upper and lower layers can be controlled by the compositions of each layer (Matsuo, paragraph 0072-0073). Thus, Matsuo renders obvious an embodiment where a Ru-based material layer is formed over the protective layer.
Regarding Claims 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20, Matsuo teaches a reflective mask blank and a reflective mask comprising a substrate, a reflective multilayer, a protective film, and an absorber film. Matsuo suggests a protective film comprising silicon, nitrogen, and the oxide of zirconium, but is silent in regards to the elemental contents of the protective layer, in terms of atomic%.
Nam teaches a protective film that includes at least one material selected from molybdenum (Mo), tantalum (Ta), aluminum (Al), and silicon (Si), and further includes at least one light element selected from the group consisting of oxygen (O), carbon (C), and nitrogen (N) (Nam, paragraph 0048). Specifically, it is preferable that the protective film includes the material selected from the group consisting of Mo, Ta, and Al at a content of 0 atomic% to 10 atomic%; oxygen at a content of 10 atomic% to 80 atomic%; silicon at a content of 10 atomic% to 80 atomic%; and the light element at a content of 0 atomic% to 60 atomic% (Nam, paragraph 0048). The ranges taught by Nam overlap those recited by instant claims 7-9, 11-13, and 15-20. For instance, Nam’s protective film can be a film comprising SiCAlO or SiNAlO. The metal content in either case is between 0 atomic% to 10 atomic%, which overlaps with the metal contents recited by instant claims 7, 11, 15, and 18. The oxygen content is between 10 atomic% to 80 atomic%, which overlaps with the oxygen contents recited by instant claims 8, 12, 16, and 19. The light element content (either nitrogen or carbon) is between 0 atomic% to 60 atomic%, which overlaps with the carbon content recited by instant claims 9 and 17 and the nitrogen content recited by instant claims 13 and 20. Per MPEP 2144.05 I., when the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Shiraishi teaches a multilayer film reflective mirror. The multilayer film reflective mirror comprises a substrate (5), a multilayer film capable of reflecting EUV light (4), and a protective layer (6) formed over the top surface of the multilayer film (Shiraishi, paragraph 0088-0089 and Fig. 7). The protective layer may be formed of a material selected from the group of ruthenium alloys, rhodium (Rh), rhodium alloys, niobium (Nb), niobium alloys, platinum (Pt), platinum alloys, molybdenum (Mo), molybdenum alloys, titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), molybdenum disilicide (MoSi2), silicon carbide (SiC), and inorganic oxides such as niobium oxide, and combinations thereof (Shiraishi, paragraph 0096).
Matsuo and Nam are analogous art because both references pertain to masks having protective layers. Shiraishi is analogous art because this reference pertains to protective layers overlying a multilayer reflective film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a protective film comprising SiC or SiN in combination with the oxide of a metal (such as Mo) in the amounts taught by Nam, in place of the protective film taught by Matsuo because the protective film taught by Nam offers desirable etching characteristics during patterning of the mask blank to form the mask (Nam, paragraph 0047-0049 and 0051). Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the optical properties of the protective film (such as light transmission, light absorption, and the like) and etching characteristics are affected by compositional changes in the film makeup. See, for instance, Matsuo’s inventive examples (paragraphs 0051-0060; 0064-0070; and 0074-0124), which demonstrate that etching and optical properties of the protective films change with different compositional makeups. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to replace molybdenum with titanium dioxide in the protective layer, as taught by Shiraishi, because it is taught that molybdenum and titanium dioxide are functional equivalents for use in a protective layer (Shiraishi, paragraph 0096).
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