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 Rejections of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendments and arguments of the applicant.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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1,11 and 17, it is not clear how third reflective layer (region) has a higher concentration than the other layers. It is not clear where the (additional) nitrogen to form the nitride comes from. Mere heat treatment does not change silicon into silicon nitride. The language describing the increased nitrogen content is new matter.
No extra nitrogen/nitride results from this, but the nitrogen/nitride distribution in the layer is changed. (see Mikami 20150160548 )
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.
In claims 1,11 and 17, the “first reflective layer”, “second reflective layer” and “third reflective layer” are all derived from the same (original) reflective layer with the “third reflective layer” (120c) being directly laser treated and the “second reflective layer”(120b) being indirectly laser treated as taught with respect to figure 8D. The current language implies separate reflective layers, when these are more properly understood as different regions of the same reflective layer. Please amend the claims to make this clear. The application might replace “first reflective layer” with - - first reflective layer region- - , “second reflective layer” with - - second reflective layer region- -, and “third reflective layer” with – third reflective layer region- -
In claim 1,11 and 17, the language “divided into three contiguous regions,” should be replaced with - - three separate contiguous regions- - . to make it clear that each of the three regions is contiguous, but these three regions are separate.
The language of claim 1 and 11 should describe the marker region as being in a fourth corner of the scribe lane.
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, Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 and Teramoto et al. 20120322169
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 irradiated ion 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
Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 4, the reduction in the reflectance of the reflective multilayer due to mixing/alteration due to ion implantation. The ion implanted atom/element forms a compound with some or most of the elements making up the multilayer reflective layer [0030]. As a material which can be used in mixing the layers, a rare gas can be used, but oxygen, nitrogen or both can be used as they form a compound with silicon. molybdenum or the like in addition to mixing the layers [0033]. The use of a laser beam to facilitate the mixing is also known [0034]. Example 1 forms an Si/Mo multilayer, which is then masked using a photoresist and nitrogen ions are used in the implantation process. [0039-0041. Example 2 is similar, but the forms a Ta (absorber) film on the portions where the reflective multilayer had been etched to a depth of 40 nm as well as mixed [0042]. Figure 1 show the mixing to form the pattern (4) and the frame area (5).
PNG
media_image7.png
210
395
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
267
326
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
213
247
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Teramoto et al. 20120322169 in figure 28, illustrates a photomask/reticle with a chromium light blocking region (BR) with the corners partially filled in surrounding a device pattern region (D1), which includes chip patterns (CP) where each of the chip pattern regions includes alignment marks (F2) and these are separated by scribing lines and the device pattern region (D1) has alignment marks (F3) in the middle and at the corners which are also in a dicing region [0060-0062,0109]. Figure 30 is similar.
PNG
media_image10.png
321
318
media_image10.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, the increased nitrogen content of the ion implanted area or alignment features in the corners of the dicing lanes.
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 replacing the irradiation with hydrogen or helium with an irradiation with nitrogen atoms disclosed as useful in mixing the layers and forming nitrides with silicon and/or molybdenum by Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972, 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] and forming a devices region where the dicing lanes include alignment patterns at the corners and the corners of the dicing lanes surrounding the device region touch the filled in corners in a manner similar to figure 28 of Teramoto et al. 20120322169 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, the buffer region or the black border region. r 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.
In the response of 7/24/2026, the applicant argues that the references applied do not teach the division of the mask into the main region, the buffer region and the black border region or teach the higher nitrogen content in the reflective layer region corresponding to the black border. The examiner holds that the device/pattern region in the references Amano et al. and Teramoto et al. are the “main regions. The areas of corresponding to the ion irradiated areas of Amano et al. and Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 including the infilled corners taught by Iwabuchi et al. correspond to the black border region, and the area between the infilled corners of Iwabuchi JP H08220732 corresponds to the to the (4) border regions (noting that 3 is broken into 3a and 3b in the disclosure). The use of a nitrogen beam for the alteration/mixing the reflective multilayer is taught in Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972
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, Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 and Teramoto et al. 20120322169, further in view of Watanabe et al. JP 02-174110 and/or Tanaka et al. JP H-08015854.
Watanabe et al. JP 02-174110 (machine translation attached) teaches reticles/photomask with a circuit pattern area (31) and alignment marks (32,33,34,35) in the scribing lanes at the corners
PNG
media_image11.png
247
423
media_image11.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_image12.png
424
458
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The combination of Amano JP 2012212787, Iwabuchi JP H08220732, Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 and Teramoto et al. 20120322169 does not describe the use of “L” shaped 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, Furimizo et al. JP 2015141972 and Teramoto et al. 20120322169 by forming “L” shaped 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 Watanabe et al. JP 02-174110 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubis et al. DE 102005024348 (machine translation attached) teaches mask shapes with non-square exposure fields.
PNG
media_image13.png
201
233
media_image13.png
Greyscale
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 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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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 September 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights