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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are under consideration
Claims 2, 6, 13, and 16 are canceled
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the surface layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending to “the surface-side layer”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (US 20100136464 A1, published 2010) in view of Hayashi (US 20100304283 A1, published 2010).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20,
Hosoya teaches a reflective mask blank has a substrate, a multilayer reflective film formed on the substrate to reflect exposure light, a protective film formed on the multilayer reflective film, and an absorber film formed on the protective film to absorb the exposure light. The protective film is made of an Ru compound containing Ru and X (X may be Nb). The protective film has an oxidized surface layer containing Nb as a main component (instant stress relaxing layer) [abstract], where the portion close to the multilayer reflective film would be expected to be free of oxygen, while the surface (side in contact with the absorber film) contains both Nb and O, where Nb is a “main component”, reading on instant claims 3 and 7-10.
Further, the oxygen content in the oxidized surface layer would be expected to have an oxygen (O) content that either stepwise and/or continuously increases along the thickness direction from the side close to the reflective multilayer film to the side in contact with the absorber film, reading on instant claim 14.
Hosoya teaches EUV lithography [0003].
Hosoya teaches the multilayer reflective film comprising a plurality of elements different in refractive index from one another and cyclically or periodically laminated [0077].
Hosoya teaches the protective film may contain an Ru content of 10 to 95 at % [0056-0058], where the Nb content may then be 5 to 90 at%. For example, the Nb may be 60 at % and the Ru may be 40 at %, aligning with the instant claimed ranges, reading on instant claims 4 and 11. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Hosoya teaches the protective film need not have a uniform composition throughout the entire film. For example, the protective film may have a composition gradient such that a composition is different in a thickness direction. In case where the protective film has the composition gradient, the composition of elements contained in the protective film may be different either continuously or stepwise [0064]. While silent to example compositional gradients, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the Nb content may either stepwise and/or continuously increase or decrease along the thickness direction from the side close to the reflective multilayer film to the side in contact with the absorber film, as the composition of the protective film is preferably made of RuNb, where any compositional gradient would result in either an increase or decrease in Nb content [0062], reading on instant claims 5 and 12.
Further, as Hosoya teaches the protective film has an oxidized surface layer containing Nb as a main component, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try adjusting the compositional gradient or stepwise difference where the top portion consists of only Nb, to ensure the oxidized surface layer contains Nb as a main component, reading on instant claim 19.
Hosoya teaches the protective film has a thickness within a range between 0.8 nm and 5 nm, while the oxidized surface layer has a thickness within a range between 0.5 nm and 1.5 nm [claims 3-4], overlapping the range of and reading on instant claim 15. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Hosoya teaches the absorber layer may contain Ta and N [0082-0084] and has a thickness between 30 and 100 nm [0088].
However, Hosoya only teaches N as 5 to 30 at % [0084].
Hayashi, analogous art, teaches a reflective mask blank for EUV lithography [abstract].
Hayashi teaches examples of absorber films including an example TaN layer with a thickness of 60nm, where Ta:N=65:35 (Ta content: 65 at %, N content: 35 at %), reading on instant claim 20.
Hayashi teaches another example TaNH layer with a thickness of 60nm, where Ta:N:H=63.9:35.8:0.3 (Ta content: 63.9 at %, N content: 35.8 at %, H content: 0.3 at %), reading on instant claims 1 and 17.
Hayashi teaches that by making an absorber layer to be a film (TaNH film) containing Ta, N and H and defining the contents of the respective components, the crystalline state of the film can be made amorphous, and the stress and surface roughness can be reduced [0020].
As both Hayashi and Hosoya teach reflective mask blanks comprising of Ta and N, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using the absorber films of Hayashi as the absorber film of Hosoya would result in a comparable and expected reflective mask blank. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the absorber films of Hayashi as the absorber film of Hosoya for the benefits taught by Hayashi.
Hayashi also teaches forming a low reflection layer to an inspection light to be used for inspection of a mask pattern on top of the absorber layer, where the low reflection layer contains tantalum (Ta), oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N), and in the low reflection layer, the Ta content is from 10 to 80 at %, the total content of O and N is from 20 to 90 at %, and the compositional ratio of O to N is from 19:1 to 1:19 [0027-0028], overlapping the ranges of instant claim 18.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the low reflection layer of Hayashi in the mask blank of Hosoya for the benefits disclosed by Hayashi.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (US 20100136464 A1, published 2010) in view of Hayashi (US 20100304283 A1, published 2010) as applied to claims and 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Okamura (US20140186753A1, published 2014).
Regarding claim 18,
Hosoya in view of Hayashi teaches the above limitations set forth.
Hosoya et al fails to teach the low reflection layer with a thickness of not more than 2nm.
Okamura, analogous art, teaches a reflecting mask blank, where a low-reflection layer is formed on an absorption layer [0040], where the low-reflection layer may be TaON [0073], with a thickness of 1-20nm [0074], overlapping the range of instant claim 18. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As both Hosoya et al. and Okamura teach reflective mask blanks comprising of a TaON low reflection layer formed over an absorber layer, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that using a lower thickness as taught by Okamura with the films of Hayashi would form a comparable and expected reflective mask blank. Further, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using a thinner film as taught by Okamura in an effort to reduce manufacturing costs by using less material when forming the low reflection layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20100084375A1 teaches a similar reflective mask blank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/A.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights