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 .
Applicant added Claims 11-20. Support for the new claims is found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 2 recite “optional carbon” and “optional boron” because of the use of the phrase “consists of,” it would be more grammatically clear to use the phrases “optionally carbon” and “optionally boron.” Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 07/28/2025, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Hayashi et al. WO 2012105508 A1 in view of Nam et al. KR 20110059510 A are overcome by the amendments. New rejections over Sakai et al. US 20150261083 A1 in view of Nam et al. KR 20110059510 A have been made necessitated by amendment.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. US 20150261083 A1 in view of Nam et al. KR 20110059510 A.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches a reflective mask blank for EUV lithography comprising a substrate, and formed in order on that substrate is a reflective layer, protective layer for the reflective layer, absorber film for absorbing EUV light and a hard mask layer [0180, 0182-0183]. The protective layer comprises ruthenium (Ru) and the absorption layer comprises tantalum (Ta) [0008, 0146]. Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches an etching mask or hard mask layer comprised of CrCON [0143], meeting the limitation for the hard mask layer comprising chromium (Cr) and at least one of nitrogen (N) and oxygen (O), and optionally carbon (C). Sakai et al. ‘083 further teaches the inclusion of a highly oxidized layer comprising tantalum (Ta) and oxygen (O) that controls reflectance for a pattern inspection wavelength in Deep Ultraviolet Light [0027] and an inspection wavelength of 193 nm [0190], meeting the limitation of the instant Claims for a low-reflective layer comprising tantalum (Ta) and oxygen (O). Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches an etching mask or hard mask layer comprised of CrON [0143], meeting the limitation for the hard mask layer comprising chromium (Cr) and at least one of nitrogen (N) and oxygen (O). The etching mask or hard mask layer of Sakai et al. ‘083 may have a thickness of not more than 7 nm [0041], meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
Sakai et al. ‘083 does not teach hard mask layer film density.
However, Nam et al. ‘510 teaches a hard mask layer for lithography exposure light wavelengths at 193 nm or 248 nm [0001]. The hard mask is chromium based and can include an “oxide, a nitride, a carbide… oxidized carbonitride [0081].” The hard mask of Nam et al. ‘510 has a film density of 2.0 g / cm3 or more [0068], which specifically comports with the film density of the metal thin film it is disposed on [0068-0069]. Both films may have the same grain size which aligns with the results in Table 2 for a film density of 4.0 g/ cm3 for the metal thin film. This value lies inside the range of the instant Claims from 3.00 g / cm3 to 4.45 g / cm3 and from 3.00 g / cm3 to 4.25 g / cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to substitute the hard mask film of Sakai et al. ‘083 with the hard mask of Nam et al. ‘510 having a composition meeting the limitations of the instant Claims with a film density of 4.3 g / cm3 in order to increase stability and uniformity of the hard mask film based on the teachings of Nam et al. at [0068-0069]. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, the hard mask layer of Sakai et al. ‘083 may have a thickness of not more than 7 nm [0041], overlapping the instantly claimed range of 2 nm to 30 nm, meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 9-10, 15, and 20, Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches a CrOCN hardmask layer (Cr: 34 at %, O: 39 at %, C: 11 at %, N: 16 at %) [0183], meeting the hard mask layer limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claims 12 and 17, Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches a CrO hardmask layer (Cr: 46 at %, O: 54 at %) [0187], meeting the hard mask layer limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. US 20150261083 A1 in view of Nam et al. KR 20110059510 A as applied to Claims 1-10, 12, 15, 17, and 20 above further in view of Nam et al. US 20140004449 A1.
Regarding Claims 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-19, Sakai et al. ‘083 modified by Nam et al. ‘510 teaches the limitations set forth above. Sakai et al. ‘083 taches exemplary chromium-containing materials for its hardmask layer including CrN, CrON hardmask layers but does not expressly teach concentrations for these layers.
However, Nam et al. ‘449 teaches a mask blank for EUV lithography having a chromium-containing hard mask film including CrN, CrON, and CrCN [0016].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would look to the art for concentrations of chromium, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen suitable for a hard mask layer in an EUV mask blank. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the hard mask of Sakai et al. ‘083 with the concentrations taught in Nam et al. ‘449 with the reasonable expectation of forming a useful hard mask layer. Nam et al. ‘449 teaches concentrations (Cr: from 30 to 99 at %, N: from 0 to 50 at %, O: 0 to 50 at %, C: from 0 to 20%) at [0030] overlapping the instantly claimed ranges, and meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended to require the hard mask layer consists of chromium and at least one of nitrogen and oxygen, optionally carbon and boron. As such, new rejections have been made, necessitated by amendment. Nam et al. ‘510 teaches a hardmask layer having the film density properties of the hardmask of the instant claims. Sakai et al. ‘083 teaches a hardmask layer naming the same materials, and Nam et al. ‘449 expressly teaches elemental concentrations. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
The hard mask of Nam et al. ‘510 has a film density of 2.0 g / cm3 or more [0068], which specifically comports with the film density of the metal thin film it is disposed on [0068-0069]. The experimental film densities presented in Table 2 range from 1.2 to 4.3 g / cm3. Nam et al. ‘510 is concerned with measuring reflective changes after dipping in hot DI water. Film density over 2.0 g / cm3 is associated with beneficial material properties. 4.3 g / cm3 is the upper limit of experimentation, associated with minimal reflective changes after dipping in hot DI water. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”
The prior art includes reflective mask blanks which will meet (or in the alternative overlap) the claimed film density as they name the same materials as the instant application.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, MARK HUFF can be reached on (571) 272-1385. 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.
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/MARK F. HUFF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1737