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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejections of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendments and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Now that the claims require a material difference in the buffer and black border regions, the claims should be amended to replace “corner region contacting” with - - corner region separating- -
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.
(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.
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 1-5,7,8, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano JP 2012212787, in view of Iwabuchi JP H08220732
Amano JP 2012212787 (machine translation attached) teaches EUV photomasks where an ion beam (27) is used to disturb/degrade the periodicity of the reflective multilayer (3) and reduce its EUV reflectivity. Figure 5 shows a top view of the mask and figures 3 show the overlap of four successive exposures. Figure 10 shows the spacing of the areas exposed to the ion beam (13), from the edge of the absorber in the frame/border region (12). This separation between the image area and the edge of the light shielding area (ion beams exposed area) is 0.1 to 1000 microns, with 1-300 microns being preferred [0061]. In example 1, an EUV photomask is formed by coating a substrate with Mo/Si multilayer, a Ru capping layer, and a Ta absorber layer. The surface of the absorber layer was then irradiated with hydrogen and helium ions to a penetration depth of 350 nm [0092-0094]. Example 3 is similar to example 1, but the Ta absorber layer was patterned before irradiation with He+ ion beams. The distance between the ion irradiated portion and the circuit pattern was 500nm. The reflectivity of the absorber was 2% and the irradiated areas had an absorption of 0.1% [0098-0101]. Example 4 is similar to example 3, but the distance between the edge of the circuit pattern and the ion irradiated portion was 100 nm to 1000 microns in the inventive photomasks (there is a comparative example first). This was used in an exposure where four exposure fields were overlapped as in figure 3 with a 1/5 reduction exposure and the tolerances of 5% dimension variation was achieved [0102-0105].
PNG
media_image1.png
296
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
278
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
187
221
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Iwabuchi JP H08220732 (machine translation attached) teaches a, exposure mask including a translucent chromium oxide layer (1) which will be patterned with the desired circuit pattern in region (2), surrounded by a light shielding (frame) region (3) which prevents the exposure of the resist multiple (four) times in the four corners when used in an exposure process (abstract and [0008]) There is no problem even if the blind edge (6) overlaps the adjacent exposure area [0007]
PNG
media_image4.png
324
233
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
322
217
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
343
190
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Amano JP 2012212787 teaches the main exposure region including highly reflective areas adjacent where the reflective layer is exposed which would include scribe regions along its border, a lower reflective buffer region where the reflectivity is reduced by the presence of the absorber area and a black border region where the reflectivity is reduced by the presence of the absorber layer and the damage/mixing of the reflective layer using an ion beam. The reflectivities of these different areas inherently meet the recited limitations (the average reflectivity of the main exposure region and the reflectivity of the uncovered areas of the reflective multilayer within the main exposure area meet the high reflectivity limitation). Amano JP 2012212787 does not teach the corner regions of the black border region as contacting the buffer regions and separating them so they are apart from each other.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of forming mask in the cited examples of Amano JP 2012212787 by modifying the area occupied by the black border region to fill in the corners in the manner illustrated in figure 1 for the reticle blind of Iwabuchi JP H08220732 to prevent (multiple) exposure at the corners of the mask pattern as taught in Iwabuchi JP H08220732 which would result in undesired exposure of the resist.[0008] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask.
Further with respect to the embodiments of claim 8, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the processes of forming the masks by choosing a distance between the irradiated area and the edge of the absorber layer forming the frame to be between 4 and 8 microns based upon this being within the 1-300 microns being preferred [0061] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful photomask.
In the response of 4/13/2026, the applicant argues that the rejection does not teach the relative reflectances. The examiner has modified the rejection to address this, noting that the exposure fields includes highly reflective areas where the reflective multilayer is not covered by the absorber pattern which have a higher reflectance than the buffer regions which are covered by the absorber and the black border region which includes the absorber layer and the reflective multilayer is damaged/alloyed which further reduces the reflectivity of those areas. The average reflectivity of the exposure field which is a combination of the highly reflective areas (uncovered reflective multilayer) and absorber covered areas is also higher than the reflectivity of the buffer region which includes the absorber layer. The mixing of the reflective multilayer layer in Amano JP 2012212787 (and Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398) is the same mixing as discussed in the instant specification and some mixing outside the directly irradiated/exposed areas will inherently results in the same manner as discussed in the instant specification. The applicant has not addresses the arbitrary designation of the other “regions” rejected under this heading. Currently, the “regions” without any specific patterns in them are considered intended use limitations.
Claims 1-5,7, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398, in view of Iwabuchi JP H08220732
Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398 (machine translation attached) illustrates in figures 3 and 4, an EUV mask including a the black mixing region (21a) formed in the reflective multilayer (21), which is spaced a distance from the circuit pattern (85). The mixing is facilitated by electron beams exposure which causes heating [0038-0049].
PNG
media_image7.png
423
736
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398 teaches the main exposure region including highly reflective areas adjacent where the reflective layer is exposed which would include scribe regions along its border, a lower reflective buffer region where the reflectivity is reduced by the presence of the absorber area and a black border region where the reflectivity is reduced by the presence of the absorber layer and the damage/mixing of the reflective layer using an electron beam. The reflectivities of these different areas inherently meet the recited limitations (the average reflectivity of the main exposure region and the reflectivity of the uncovered areas of the reflective multilayer within the main exposure area meet the high reflectivity limitation). Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398 does not teach the corner regions of the black border region as contacting the buffer regions and separating them so they are apart from each other.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mask of examples 3 or 4 of Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398 by modifying the area occupied by the black border region to fill in the corners in the manner illustrated in figure 1 for the reticle blind of Iwabuchi JP H08220732 to prevent (multiple) exposure at the corners of the mask pattern as taught in Iwabuchi JP H08220732 which would result in undesired exposure of the resist.[0008] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask. The examiner notes that the claims language recites various ”regions”, but doe not describe features in these “regions” of the mask which differentiate them from other “regions” of the mask. The examiner holds that these are intended use limitations as they have no structure.
In the response of 4/13/2026, the applicant argues that the rejection does not teach the relative reflectances. The examiner has modified the rejection to address this, noting that the exposure fields includes highly reflective areas where the reflective multilayer is not covered by the absorber pattern which have a higher reflectance than the buffer regions which are covered by the absorber and the black border region which includes the absorber layer and the reflective multilayer is damaged/alloyed which further reduces the reflectivity of those areas. The average reflectivity of the exposure field which is a combination of the highly reflective areas (uncovered reflective multilayer) and absorber covered areas is also higher than the reflectivity of the buffer region which includes the absorber layer. The mixing of the reflective multilayer layer in Kaneko et al. JP 2012209398 is the same mixing as discussed in the instant specification and some mixing outside the directly irradiated/exposed areas will inherently results in the same manner as discussed in the instant specification. The applicant has not addresses the arbitrary designation of the other “regions” rejected under this heading. Currently, the “regions” without any specific patterns in them are considered intended use limitations.
Claims 1-5,7,8,10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano JP 2012212787, in view of Iwabuchi JP H08220732, further in view of Mikami et al. 20150160548.
Mikami 20150160548 in example 1 forms and EUV maskblank on a substrate, by coating at reflective multilayer of alternating 2.3 nm Mo/4.5nm Si (B doped), where each Si layer is exposed to a nitrogen plasma prior to coating the subsequent Mo layer. The topmost Si layer is then coated with a 2.5 nm Ru capping layer [0146-0180]. Example 4 is similar, but includes the coating of a TaSiN absorber layer and a TaSiON low reflectance layer [0186-0203]. The protective (capping) layer can be a platinum group metal layer such as ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), palladium (Pd), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), or a compound containing these metals A layer is preferred because it satisfies the above conditions. Among them, it is preferable to form a Ru layer or a Ru compound (RuB, RuZr, etc.) layer. When a Ru compound (capping) layer is formed as the protective layer 13, the Ru content in the protective layer 13 is preferably 50 at% or more, and more preferably 70 at% or more [0093]. The SiN layer can be 0.3 to 1.5 nm and MoN can be 0.2-2.0 nm. The patterning of the absorber layer to form a useful EUV mask is disclosed [0076-0077]. In the present invention, the thickness of the thin film 12b containing Si and N formed on the Si layer 12a is not particularly limited, but the thickness of the thin film 12b is preferably 0.2 to 2.0 nm. When the film thickness of the thin film 12b is 0.2 nm or more, it is preferable in order to exhibit an effect of suppressing the progress of mixing at the layer interface constituting the Mo / Si multilayer reflective film. On the other hand, it is preferable that the film thickness of the thin film 12b is 2.0 nm or less because a decrease in EUV reflectance is slight [0072-0073,0078]. When a thin film containing Mo and N is formed at the interface between the Mo layer and the Si layer (in the Si layer on the Mo layer), the thickness of the thin film is not particularly limited. The thickness is preferably 0.2 to 2.0 nm. When the thickness of the thin film is 0.2 nm or more, it is preferable for exhibiting an action of suppressing the progress of mixing at the layer interface constituting the Mo / Si multilayer reflective film. On the other hand, it is preferable that the thickness of the thin film is 2.0 nm or less because the decrease in EUV reflectance is slight [0072]. The nitridation of the surface of the Si layer or the Mo layer is disclosed. the time for exposing the Si layer surface or the Mo layer surface to the nitrogen-containing atmosphere is set to 60 sec and 600 sec, respectively, but the time for exposing the Si layer surface or the Mo layer surface to the nitrogen-containing atmosphere is limited to this. It can select suitably in the range which satisfies the conditions regarding the nitrogen-containing atmosphere mentioned above. The procedure of exposing the Si layer surface or Mo layer surface to nitrogen gas or a mixed gas of nitrogen gas and an inert gas such as argon under a reduced-pressure atmosphere, as in the procedure shown in the examples described later, When film formation and Mo layer formation are performed using the same chamber, the surface of the Si layer or the surface of the Mo layer is made of nitrogen gas (or a mixed gas of nitrogen gas and an inert gas such as argon). It is important to exhaust the nitrogen gas (or a mixed gas of nitrogen gas and an inert gas such as argon) in the chamber after performing the exposure procedure and before forming the Mo layer or Si layer. Is a preferred procedure. Moreover, this procedure controls the exposure amount of nitrogen gas (or a mixed gas of nitrogen gas and an inert gas such as argon) to the Si layer surface or Mo layer surface, whereby a thin film containing Si and N, Or it is a preferable procedure also in the point that the nitrogen content of the thin film containing Mo and N can be controlled [0075-0076]
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the EUV masks rendered obvious by the combination of Amano JP 2012212787 and Iwabuchi JP H08220732 by nitriding the Mo/Si interfaces by exposing them to nitrogen gas and inducing the formation of SiN and MoN layers as taught by Mikami 20150160548 at [0146-0180] to prevent mixing at the interface as taught in Mikami 20150160548 at [0072-0073,0078].
Claims 1-9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Amano JP 2012212787, in view of Iwabuchi JP H08220732, further in view of Van de Kerkhof WO 2022207259, Chen TW I338819 and/or Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854.
Van de Kerkhof WO 2022207259 illustrates in figure 2, shows a photomask with imaging area (20) and alignment marks (28) which are within the scribe line area and course alignment marks (32) locates in the corner areas (34) [00065-00077]
PNG
media_image8.png
282
332
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Chen TW I338819 (machine translation attached) in figure 6 teaches the squares in the four regions formed at the corners where the non-transmissive regions 104 and the scribe lane regions 108 meet are different (page 14/lines 9-13) .Referring to FIG. 8, after performing an exposure process of the non-adjacent exposure of step 220, the four blocks 126a, 126b, 126c, 126d of the stack pattern on the reticle pattern are on the wafer 800. An overlap occurs at one corner of the exposure area 802 to form a box-in-box pattern 804. In an embodiment, if there are four sets of stacked pairs of measurement patterns on the reticle pattern as an example, an overlap will be generated at the four corners of the exposed area on the wafer to form four frame patterns (not shown) (17/lines 4-10).
PNG
media_image9.png
571
499
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
547
515
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 4a, masking elements (28a-28d) in each corner with inspection patterns (26a-26d) [0039].
PNG
media_image11.png
424
458
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The combination of Amano JP 2012212787 and Iwabuchi JP H08220732 does not describe the use of alignment marks in the areas of the mask corresponding to the dicing region.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the EUV masks rendered obvious by the combination of Amano JP 2012212787 and Iwabuchi JP H08220732 by forming light shielding alignment features in the dicing area, including in the corner regions as is known in the masking art as evidenced by the teachings of Van de Kerkhof WO 2022207259, Chen TW I338819 and/or Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854 which allows alignment of successive exposures without decreasing the area for the circuit pattern on the mask and the wafer. The examiner holds that the alignment features are sized so that they printout on the wafer during exposures within the exposure latitude.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Amano JP 2012212787, in view of Iwabuchi JP H08220732 and Mikami et al. 20150160548, further in view of Van de Kerkhof WO 2022207259, Chen TW I338819 and/or Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854
The combination of Amano JP 2012212787 , Iwabuchi JP H08220732 and Mikami et al. 20150160548 does not describe the use of alignment marks in the areas of the mask corresponding to the dicing region.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the EUV masks rendered obvious by the combination of Amano JP 2012212787, Iwabuchi JP H08220732 and Mikami et al. 20150160548 by forming light shielding alignment features in the dicing area, including in the corner regions as is known in the masking art as evidenced by the teachings of Van de Kerkhof WO 2022207259 , Chen TW I338819 and/or Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854, which allows alignment of successive exposures without decreasing the area for the circuit pattern on the mask and the wafer. The examiner holds that the alignment features are sized so that they printout on the wafer during exposures within the exposure latitude.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm 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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights