DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 18, 2026, has been entered.
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) 1-2, 8-10, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0177841 (hereinafter referred to as Sakai) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0224737 (hereinafter referred to as Inazuki) as evidenced by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2000-214307 (hereinafter referred to as JP ‘307), and KR10-1593388 (hereinafter referred to as Nam et al).
Sakai, in [0056], and [0058], discloses the formation of a mask blank that comprises a transparent quartz substrate and light-shielding layer, wherein the light shielding layer includes a transition metal, and nitrogen and oxygen ([0095]). Sakai, in [0022], and [0024], and in the examples, discloses that the light shielding material is a transition metal that includes chromium (sputtering target includes transition metal). Sakai, in [0058], and [0127], discloses that the light shielding layer is a laminated layer of a first and second light shielding layers, and Sakai, in [0120], discloses that the sputtering target is a chromium target and that the oxygen or nitrogen are added , and in [0147], Sakai discloses a content of at least about 40% in the CrN layer. Sakai, in [0002]-[0003], discloses that the mask i.e., using the mask with the light shielding layer as the pattern (as described in the preceding sentences), can be used in the patterning of a semiconductor device wherein the semiconductor substrate is subjected to a photolithography process to form a pattern in the semiconductor substrate, the photolithography process includes the formation of a resist film on the substrate, exposing the substrate through the mask and developing the exposed film (claims 1-2, 8-10).
The difference between the claims and Sakai is that Sakai does not specify the grain size or count. Sakai does not disclose the presence of iron in the claimed amount or as recited in claim 13.
Inazuki, in [0065] and [0079], discloses that the chromium sputter target for depositing the chromium-containing film (light-shielding film) includes about 30ppm (0.003 wt.%) of iron in the chromium target.
JP ‘307, in [0016], and [0026] discloses that adding Fe in the light shielding material to at least greater than 0.00 % by weight (greater than zero includes the claimed content) improves the light shielding property.
The difference between the claims and Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 is that Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 does not specify the grain size.
Nam, in step (b1), discloses that the grain size of the molybdenum film has a grain size of about 15nm.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Sakai in view of Inazuki by using a trace amount of Fe in the light shielding material (coated or to be coated) i.e., sputter target of Sakai because Sakai teaches the use of transition metal and does not preclude the iron content, Inazuki, in [0079] teaches to keep the iron content low so as to not affect the optical properties of chromium and JP ‘307, in [0038], and [0039], discloses adding Fe to a light shielding material film to improve light shielding property, and that adding Fe improves acid resistance to the film. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 by using the grain size in the light shielding film as taught by Nam because Nam teaches in step b1) that having a large grain size does not result in the formation of a film with desired density, and having a large grain size results in increasing defects in the film and Sakai in [0126], teaches reducing the grain size in the light shielding film formed in order to reduce surface roughness. Sakai teaches the same process of sputter depositing the light-shielding film on the quartz substrate, and in [0126], discloses that the film formed is desired of low surface roughness so as to also possess a reduction in grain size, and the film is deposited with the same constitutional components, transition metal, oxygen and nitrogen and Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 teaches the use of a very low content of iron in the chromium target used for sputter depositing the light-shielding film and therefore, Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 will inherently and necessarily possess the claimed grain size range and the number of grains per sq. µm.
Claim(s) 3-5, and 11-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0177841 (hereinafter referred to as Sakai) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0224737 (hereinafter referred to as Inazuki) as evidenced by Japanese Patent Publication No. 2000-214307 (hereinafter referred to JP ‘307), and KR10-1593388 (hereinafter referred to as Nam et al) , as applied to claims 1-2, 8-10, 13, above, and further in view of KR 202100065049 (hereinafter referred to as Hashimoto).
Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307, and Nam is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Sakai, in [0058], and [0127], discloses that the light shielding layer is a laminated layer of a first and second light shielding layers. Sakai teaches the formation of laminate of light shielding layers (another layer formed on the laminate, plurality ) that comprise transition metal and oxygen ([0022], and [0078]). Sakai, in [0009], and [0171], discloses that the light shielding layer can be etched by a dry etching gas such a chlorine gas and/or mixed gas which includes argon (mixed gas [0118]).
The difference between the claims and Sakai in view Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307, and Nam is that Sakai in view Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307, and Nam does not disclose the claimed etching speed.
Hashimoto, in Example 1, discloses that the crystal size (grain size) of the light shielding film is increased so as to increase the etch rate of the light shielding film to about 1.5nm/sec which is greater than the claimed etch speed recited in claims 3-5, and 11-12.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Sakai in view Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307, and Nam by using the process information taught by Hashimoto to reduce the grain size so as to decrease the etch rate of the light shielding film because Sakai and Nam desires to reduce the grain size of the light shielding film and Nam prefers a grain size of 15nm and as taught by Hashimoto, reducing the grain size of the light shielding film will reduce the etch rate to less than 1.4nm/sec.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed September 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 8-10 under 35 U.S.. 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 Inazuki. See paragraph no. 3, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Sakai does not disclose the claimed grain size or grain count of the surface of the light blocking layer, Sakai teaches the forming of the light shielding layer that is formed by a sputter deposition process wherein the sputter target is a transition metal-containing target, and Nam is dependent upon to disclose the grain size of the light shielding film formed, and Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 is dependent upon to disclose the claimed iron content in the chromium target used for depositing the light shielding film, and Sakai in view of Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307, and Nam teaches the same claimed light shielding film formed by the same claimed deposition method i.e., sputtering, and teaches the same claimed composition of the sputter target and deposits on the same substrate and will inherently possess the claimed grain size and count as recited in the claims. With respect to applicant’s argument that grain size in sputtered thin films depends on various deposition parameters such as substrate temperature, sputtering power, chamber pressure, target composition, gas flows, deposition time etc., nothing in the instant claims recite the chamber pressure or the substrate temperature or any of the argued parameters. Nothing in the claims recite or limit the sputter deposition process to any of the parameters argued. With respect to applicant’s argument JP ‘307’s broad range is not encompassing the claimed range as indicated by the Tables listed in the argument, the independent claims recite a range that is outside the limiting range of values listed in the Tables cited in the arguments, and Inazuki is dependent upon to disclose the limited range of Fe in the sputter target (of chromium) that is cited in the Tables, and the range taught by Inazuki is within the range recited in new claim 13. The remainder of the sputter target composition of about 99.9999 parts by weight includes transition metal other than Fe and Sakai teaches that the sputtering target includes the claimed transition metal such as Cr, and does not prohibit the inclusion of other transition metals such as Fe or Ti, and the light shielding layer formed by a sputter deposition process as taught by Sakai will inherently possess the claimed grain size on the surface of the light shielding layer. With respect to applicant’s argument that the JP’ 307 does not teach the claimed combination of the transition metals, Sakai teaches the use of transition metal-containing sputtering target to form the light shielding layer, and Inazuki as evidenced by JP ‘307 is dependent upon to disclose the inclusion of very low content of about 0.003 wt.% of Fe in the chromium target during the formation of a light shielding layer, and JP ‘307 teaches the benefit of including a content of less than 5% by weight and greater 0.00% by weight in the light shielding layer so as to improve acid resistance and/or corrosion resistance of the light shielding layer. Although, Hashimoto teaches a transition metal-containing light shielding film, Hashimoto is not dependent upon to disclose the formation of the light shielding layer using the claimed sputter target component.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 September 30, 2026.
Prosecution Insights