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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
At p. 6 last para to p. 10 that in Kamenov "…the multilayer system comprises a plurality of partial systems each consisting of a periodic sequence of at least two stacks of individual layers." Id. 27. But these partial systems are stacked on top of each other (i.e., arranged vertically), as shown in Fig. 1 (reproduced below)…”. This is the overall argument of the applicant.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yes, it is true Kamerov comprises different partial layers in the mask. However, this mask will work as a single optical component in the system as shown in fig. 4. Also, the examiner provides an evidentiary reference to make the point clear that Kamenov teaches "different EUV- reflective multi-layer coatings" that provide "different respective intensities of EUV light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam". Finally, the claim language in claim 5 does not specify whether the mask is partial or not. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues:
At p. 15 para 2 to para 5 that Gutman was used before and the examiner fails to provide motivation.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yes, Gutman was used before as a primary reference, but this time it is used as a secondary reference. The motivation is clearly stated in the Office Action on p. 7. Having an inclined surface allows the reflection of the x-ray or neutron beam onto different parts of the sample.
Applicant argues:
At p. 15 last para that Murakami is not an extension Gutman.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Murakami’s mask has absorbers and reflectors, which makes Murakami an extension of Gutman (it only has reflectors) and both were utilized to reflect X-rays in the system (fig. 3 in Murakami, fig. 1 in Gutman). Thus, they are proper to combine.
Applicant argues:
At p. 16 para 2 that “photomasks do not produce a "monochromatic x-ray beam" from a collimated polychromatic beam”.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, both were utilized to reflect X-rays in the system.
Regarding the arguments in p. 17 to p. 18 para 3, the examiner will like to point out that it specifically applies to the embodiment of fig. 28, which discloses the absorbers have different thickness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamenov, V. et al., US 20120320348 A1 (hereinafter Kamenov).
Regarding claim 5, Kamevov teaches a system, comprising: “a photomask comprising a plurality of extreme ultraviolet (EUV)-reflective multi-layer coatings having different degrees of reflectivity” (fig. 1 and fig. 3, 3a shows the photomask has multiple layer with corresponding degree of reflectivity; para [0059] and para [0062-0063]), to “provide different respective intensities of EUV light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings of the plurality of EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings” (d1, d2 , d3 reflect its own unique light), wherein: each “EUV-reflective multi-layer coating of the plurality of EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprises multiple layers” (this is shown in fig. 1 and 3): and “each EUV-reflective multi-layer coating of the plurality of EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings has a distinct respective number of layers” (d1, d2, d3 have distinct respective number of layers).
Regarding claim 6, Kamevov teaches the system of claim 5, wherein each EUV-reflective multi-layer coating of the plurality of EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprises a distinct respective number of alternating layers of Mo and Si (para [0040] last sentence, table 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami, and in view of Gutman, G., US5757882A (hereinafter Gutman).
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches a system, comprising: a photomask (fig. 1, col 5 lines 1-7) comprising: a substrate having a surface (col 5 lines 4).
Murakami fails to teach an extreme ultraviolet (EUV)-reflective multi-layer coating situated above the substrate and having a graded thickness, wherein the graded thickness changes in a first direction parallel to the surface of the substrate; wherein the EUV-reflective multi-layer coating has different average thicknesses in a plurality of regions to provide different respective intensities of EUV light in response to successive illumination of different regions of the plurality of regions with an EUV beam.
Gutman, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, discloses an extreme ultraviolet (EUV)-reflective multi-layer coating situated above the substrate (fig. 2 col 4 lines 50-61) and having a graded thickness (fig. 2 col 4 lines 50-61), wherein the graded thickness changes in a first direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (fig. 2 col 4 lines 50-61; d1 and d2 are not the same; there is a gradient in spacing, col 6 claim 1 last para); “wherein the EUV-reflective multi-layer coating has different average thicknesses in a plurality of regions to provide different respective intensities of EUV light in response to successive illumination of different regions of the plurality of regions with an EUV beam” (the gradient indicates that the multi-layer coating has different average thicknesses for the structure of fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Gutman to Murakami to have an extreme ultraviolet (EUV)-reflective multi-layer coating situated above the substrate and having a graded thickness, wherein the graded thickness changes in a first direction parallel to the surface of the substrate; wherein the EUV-reflective multi-layer coating has different average thicknesses in a plurality of regions to provide different respective intensities of EUV light in response to successive illumination of different regions of the plurality of regions with an EUV beam in order to reflect the x-ray or neutron beam to different parts of the sample (col 2 para 5 last sentence). Note that Murakami and Gutman are proper to combine because the reticle of Murakami is an extension of Gutman.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami, as applied to claim 7 above, in view of McGeoch, M., US 9155178 B1 (hereinafter McGeoch), Gutman, and, and further in view of Pomplun, Jan, et al. "Metrology of EUV masks by EUV-scatterometry and finite element analysis." Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology XV. Vol. 7028. SPIE, 2008 (hereinafter Pomplun).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami teaches the system of claim 7, wherein: the EUV-reflective multi-layer coating comprises a number of alternating layers of Mo and Si (col 14 claims 4 and 5).
Murakami does not teach Mo and Si have graded thicknesses in the first direction and uniform thicknesses in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the second direction being parallel to the surface of the substrate; and the alternating layers of Mo and Si have a constant thickness ratio.
McGeoch, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches Mo and Si have graded thicknesses (col 6 lines 17-19; also, US 20170048959 A1, teaches Mo and Si have graded thicknesses, para [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of McGeoch to Murakami to have Mo and Si have graded thicknesses in order to achieve, on average, 50% reflectivity (col 6 lines 17-19).
Murakami, when modified by McGeoch, does not teach graded thicknesses in the first direction and uniform thicknesses in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the second direction being parallel to the surface of the substrate; and the alternating layers of Mo and Si have a constant thickness ratio.
Gutman, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches graded thicknesses in the first direction (fig. 2 col 4 lines 50-61; d1 and d2 are not the same in this direction) and uniform thicknesses in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (second direction is perpendicular with respect to d1 and d2), the second direction being parallel to the surface of the substrate (this is shown in fig. 2 the second direction is parallel to substrate 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Gutman to Murakami, when modified by McGeoch, to have graded thicknesses in the first direction and uniform thicknesses in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, the second direction being parallel to the surface of the substrate in order to reflect the x-ray or neutron beam to different parts of the sample (col 2 para 5 last sentence).
Murakami, when modified by McGeoch and Gutman, does not teach the alternating layers of Mo and Si have a constant thickness ratio.
Pomplun, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches the alternating layers of Mo and Si have a constant thickness ratio (Fig. 1(a) shows the multilayer Mo/Si have a constant thickness ratio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Pomplun to the modified device of Murakami to have the alternating layers of Mo and Si have a constant thickness ratio in order to develop a high quality EUV mask for future generation computer technology (Abstract lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami, in view of Gutman or DE 10155711 A1 (hereinafter Torstein), and further in view of Huang, T. et al., US 9285673 B2 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 9, Murakami teaches a system, comprising: a photomask comprising: a substrate having a surface (col 5 lines 4); and the respective EUV- absorber areas being situated above the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings (this is shown in fig. 1 element 2).
Murakami fails to teach plurality of distinctly patterned regions to provide different respective intensities of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions,
wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-absorber areas and respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings, the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings being situated above the surface of the substrate; and the respective EUV-absorber areas have distinct respective thicknesses extending in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate.
Gutman, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches plurality of distinctly patterned regions to provide different respective intensities of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions (fig. 2), “wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings, the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings being situated above the surface of the substrate” (this is shown in fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Gutman to Murakami to have plurality of distinctly patterned regions to provide different respective intensities of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions, “wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings, the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings being situated above the surface of the substrate” in order to sweep the collimated x-ray beam with respect to a sample accurately and at a high sweeping rate.
OR
Torsten, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches plurality of distinctly patterned regions to provide different respective intensities of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions (fig. 1), “wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings, the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings being situated above the surface of the substrate” (fig. 1 and fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Torsten to Murakami to have plurality of distinctly patterned regions to provide different respective intensities of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light in response to successive illumination with an EUV beam of different regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions, “wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings, the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings being situated above the surface of the substrate” in order to have a relatively large wavelength range (p. 2 para 6).
Murakami, when modified by Gutman or Torsten, does not teach wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-absorber areas, and the respective EUV-absorber areas have distinct respective thicknesses extending in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate.
Huang, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches “wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-absorber areas, and the respective EUV-absorber areas have distinct respective thicknesses extending in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate” (this is shown in fig. 28 elements 112 and 702 have different thicknesses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Huang to Murakami, when modified by Gutman or Torsten, to have wherein: respective regions of the plurality of distinctly patterned regions comprise respective EUV-absorber areas, and the respective EUV-absorber areas have distinct respective thicknesses extending in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the substrate in order for the mask suitable for exposing a negative photoresist of the workpiece (col 13 lines 58-60).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Gutman or Torsten, and Huang, as applied to claim 9 above, in view of Ishibashi, S. et al., US 7390596 B2 (hereinafter Ishibashi), and further in view of Shih, C.-T. et al., US 20170343892 A1 (hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 10, Murakami does not teach the system of claim 9, wherein: the respective EUV-absorber areas comprise tantalum boron nitride (TaBN) and a tantalum boron oxide (TaBO) capping layer above the TaBN; and the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprise identical numbers of alternating layers of Mo and Si.
Ishibashi, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches the respective EUV-absorber areas comprise TaBN (col 24 lines 45-52) and a tantalum boron oxide (TaBO) (col 26 lines 61-66) capping layer above the TaBN (Fig. 3 shows element 15 is above element 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Ishibashi to Murakami to have the respective EUV-absorber areas comprise TaBN and a tantalum boron oxide (TaBO) capping layer above the TaBN in order to enable accurate and quick inspection of a mask pattern (col 1 line 12).
Murakami does not teach the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprise identical numbers of alternating layers of Mo and Si.
Shih, from the same field of endeavor as Murakami, teaches the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprise identical numbers of alternating layers of Mo and Si (fig. 2 “34”, para [0029], “34” have 5 Mo and 5 Si).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Shih to Murakami, when modified by Ishibashi, to have the respective EUV-reflective multi-layer coatings comprise identical numbers of alternating layers of Mo and Si in order to improve reflectivity and diffraction balance (para [0005] last sentence).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamenov as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wihl, T. et al., US 7126699 B1 (hereinafter Wihl).
Regarding claim 11, Kamenov does not teach the system of claim 5, further comprising: an EUV light source to generate the EUV beam (para [0010] lines 7-10).
Kamenov does not teach a time-delay-integration (TDI) inspection tool comprising: a TDI sensor, wherein the photomask is to be loaded into the TDI inspection tool; and a reference intensity detector to be mounted in the TDI inspection tool to measure intensities of EUV light collected from the photomask.
Wihl, from the same field of endeavor as Kamenov, teaches a time-delay-integration (TDI) inspection tool, a TDI sensor (Fig. 6 element 40 col. 11 lines 1-4), wherein the photomask is to be loaded into the TDI inspection tool (fig. 6, “12” is placed on “44”); and a reference intensity detector (Fig. 6 element 52 col. 11 lines 12-16) to be mounted in the TDI inspection tool (this is shown in Fig. 6) to measure intensities of light (Fig. 6 element 52 col. 11 lines 12-16) collected from the photomask (Fig. 6 element 12, col 11 lines 1-4; the photomask represents the element 12
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Wihl to Kamenov to have a time-delay-integration (TDI) inspection tool, a TDI sensor, and a reference intensity detector to be mounted in the TDI inspection tool to measure intensities of EUV light collected from the photomask in order to determine the defects on the specimen (Abstract last sentence).
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 ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights