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 1-10 and 13-21 are under consideration
Claims 11-12 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 10 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 10 recites the limitation "the first surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of examination, the examiner will interpret “the first surface” as “a surface of the surface layer region”.
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.
(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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US20180252995A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-19, and 21,
Matsumoto teaches a mask blank and a phase shift mask [0001] comprising of a transparent substrate with an overlying phase shift film and a further overlying light-shielding film [0095, fig 1].
Matsumoto teaches an example where the phase shift film is formed of molybdenum (transition metal), silicon, oxygen, and nitrogen (MoSiON film, Mo: 3.2 atom %, Si: 49.1 atom %, O: 8.9 atom%, N: 38.8 atom %) with a thickness of 71 nm [0189]. Matsumoto teaches an oxide layer is formed on the surface of the phase shift film [0191], wherein a top portion of the phase shift film including the oxide layer (surface layer region, where the oxygen content would be greater than an internal region due to the oxidized layer) may be at least 5 nm thick, and a lower portion of the phase shift film (neighboring region) may be at least 5 nm thick, reading on instant claims 3-5 and 15-17.
In the above example, the ratio of a total content of nitrogen and oxygen to a content of the transition metal is 14.9, the phase shift film has a total content of the transition metal, silicon, nitrogen, and oxygen of 100 atom %, the ratio of a content of oxygen to a content of the transition metal is about 2.8, and the ratio of a content of the transition metal to a total content of the transition metal and silicon is about 0.06, reading on instant claims 1-2, 6-7, 10, 13-14, and 18-19.
Matsumoto teaches the phase shift film was measured for a transmittance and a phase difference at the wavelength (193 nm) of ArF excimer laser light with a phase shift amount measurement apparatus. The result was that the transmittance was 6.2%, and the phase difference was 177.3° [0191], reading on instant claims 9 and 21.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsumoto (US20180252995A1, published 2018).
Regarding claims 8 and 20,
Matsumoto teaches the above limitations set forth.
Matsumoto is silent to a Mo3d narrow spectrum in the internal region acquired by performing analysis by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy on the internal region, where a ratio of a maximum peak in a range where binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 226 eV or more and 229 eV or less to a maximum peak in a range where the binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 230 eV or more and 233 eV or less is less than 1.2.
However, as the composition of the phase shift film of Matsumoto aligns with that of the instant claims, the properties of the phase shift film of Matsumoto would be expected to be inherently the same, where the ratio of a maximum peak in a range where binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 226 eV or more and 229 eV or less to a maximum peak in a range where the binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 230 eV or more and 233 eV or less would be expected to be similarly and inherently less than 1.2, reading on instant claims 8 and 20.
Alternatively, as the composition of the phase shift film of Matsumoto aligns with that of the instant claims, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the ratio of a maximum peak in a range where binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 226 eV or more and 229 eV or less to a maximum peak in a range where the binding energy of the Mo3d narrow spectrum is 230 eV or more and 233 eV or less may be less than 1.2, reading on instant claims 8 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20180031963A1, US20200117077A1, and US20050186485A1 each teach similar phase shift mask blanks comprising of Molybdenum.
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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights