DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the initial office action for US Patent Application No. 18/403811 by Nishida et al.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita et al. (US 2014/0186752 A1), herein referred to as Kinoshita.
Regarding claim 1, Kinoshita teaches (Figure 3 shown below and [0040-0050 and 0151]) an EUV mask blank 20 (reflective mask blank) comprising a substrate 11; a Mo/Si multilayer reflective film 12 formed on the substrate 11; an intermediate layer 13 comprised of a first layer 21 being formed on the multilayer reflective film 12 (the first layer herein being construed as an intermediate layer formed on the multilayer reflection layer) and a second layer 22 formed on the first layer 21 (the second layer herein being construed as a barrier layer formed on the intermediate layer); a protective layer 14 formed on the second layer 22; and an absorber layer 16 (absorption layer) being formed above the protective layer
PNG
media_image1.png
370
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kinoshita teaches [0051] the first layer 21 comprises silicon and nitrogen. The first layer may further be configured to include 0.5 to 25 atomic percent nitrogen and 75 to 99.5 atomic percent silicon.
Regarding claim 8, Kinoshita teaches [0042] the protective layer 14 may be configured to include ruthenium (Ru).
Regarding claim 9, Kinoshita teaches [0166] the second layer 22 may be configured to have a thickness of 0.8 nm to 1.2 nm.
Regarding claim 10, Kinoshita teaches [0165] the first layer 21 may be configured to have a thickness of 0.8 to 1.3 nm.
Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita teaches [0077] the protective layer 14 may be configured to have a thickness of 1 to 10 nm.
Regarding claim 12, Kinoshita teaches (Figure 5 and [0176]) a low reflective layer 17 (antireflection layer) formed on the absorber layer 16 and the low reflective layer has low reflectance with respect to an inspection light used for inspection of a mask pattern that is formed in the absorber layer 16.
Regarding claim 13, Kinoshita teaches [0151] a process of producing the EUV mask blank shown in Figure 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kinoshita teaches [0073, 0078-0080, 0144] the layers constituting the EUV mask blank are formed by sputtering and may performed in the same chamber in a continuous process.
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.
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2014/0186752 A1), herein referred to as Kinoshita, in view of Lin (US 2021/0397075 A1).
Kinoshita does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2 wherein the barrier layer comprises at least one element selected from the group consisting of tantalum (Ta) and niobium (Nb). However, from the same field of technology, Lin recites the formation of an EUV photomask blank.
In view of claim 2, Lin teaches [0041] forming an intermediate layer that functions as a hydrogen barrier layer. Lin teaches the intermediate layer includes a metal oxide such as niobium oxide or tantalum oxide.
In view of claims 3 and 4, Lin teaches [0041] the intermediate layer may further include ruthenium or molybdenum oxides.
At the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the EUV mask blank taught by Kinoshita to include the specified compositions of the hydrogen barrier layer taught by Lin in order to reduce hydrogen diffusion into the multilayer reflective film, thereby minimizing structural deformations of the multilayer reflective film and improving the reflection properties of the EUV mask blank. Therefore, claims 2-4 would have been obvious at the time the present application was filed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (US 2014/0186752 A1), herein referred to as Kinoshita, in view of Paul et al. (US 2016/0377988 A1), herein referred to as Paul.
Kinoshita does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5 wherein the barrier layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of barium carbide (B4C) and yttrium nitride (YN). However, from the same field of technology, Paul recites the formation of a reflective coating for an EUV mask.
In view of claim 5, Paul teaches [0068] utilizing barium carbide (B4C) for a barrier layer that has diffusion prevention properties.
At the time of the filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the EUV mask blank taught by Kinoshita to include the specified composition of the barrier layer taught by Paul in order to reduce hydrogen diffusion into the multilayer reflective film, thereby minimizing structural deformations of the multilayer reflective film and improving the reflection properties of the EUV mask blank. Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious at the time the present application was filed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights