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. 18/727041 by Kuroki et al.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-20 of copending Application No. 18/024958 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the reference application recite analogous phase shift mask limitations.
With respect to claim 1 of the instant application, the reference application recites (Claim 8) analogous phase shift mask limitations including a transparent substrate and a phase shift film formed on the transparent substrate. The phase shift film includes a phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer capable of adjusting each of a phase and transmittance by a predetermined amount with respect to a transmitting exposure light; and a protective layer against gas permeation formed on the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer and preventing gas permeation into the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer. The phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is located on the transparent substrate side, and when a film thickness of the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is defined as d1 and a film thickness of the protective layer against gas permeation is defined as d2, d1 is larger than d2, and d2 is 15 nm or less.
With further regard to claim 1 of the instant application, the reference application recites (Claim 11) the protective layer against gas permeation contains at least one selected from tantalum metal, a tantalum compound, tungsten metal, a tungsten compound, tellurium metal, and a tellurium compound.
The reference application does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 1 directed to the gas permeation protective film being formed on the upper surface and side surface of the phase shift film. However, the reference application does recite the gas permeation protective film being formed on the phase shift film which can be construed to mean the gas permeation protective film is formed on the upper and side surfaces of the phase shift film. Therefore, the phase shift mask claims recited in the instant application and reference application are considered to be analogous to each other.
Regarding dependent claims 2-20 of the instant application, the reference application (Claims 9-20) recites analogous dependent claim limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0167185 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki, in view of Nam et al. (US 2015/0268552 A1), herein referred to as Nam, and Okubo et al. (US 2012/0034552 A1), herein referred to as Okubo. The Okubo prior art reference is provided in Applicant’s IDS filed 11/17/2025.
With respect to claims 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20, Suzuki teaches [0025-0026 and 0043-0044] a phase shift mask to which an exposure light with a wavelength of 200 nm or less is applied and which includes a circuit pattern, the phase shift mask comprising a transparent substrate (light-transmissive substrate [0025-0026]) and a phase shift film (light semi-transmissive thin film [0043]) formed on the transparent substrate. The phase shift film [0035 and 0043] includes a phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer capable of adjusting each of a phase and transmittance by a predetermined amount with respect to a transmitting exposure light and a protective layer [0040] against gas permeation formed on the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer and preventing gas permeation into the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer (suppressing oxidation rate of the light semi-transmissive thin film, thereby reducing haze formation [0009 and 0040]). Suzuki further teaches the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is located on the transparent substrate side (Figure 1, phase shift mask blank 10 with light semi-transmissive thin film 2 formed on light-transmissive substrate 1) and the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is subsequently patterned (Figure 2, steps a-e, forming a phase shift mask 20 with a patterned phase shift layer 2a). The film thickness of the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer is larger (Example 1, light semi-transmissive thin film thickness of 69 nm) than the thickness of the protective layer (Example 1, protective layer thickness of 1 nm). Suzuki further teaches [0042] it is preferable for the protective layer to have a thickness of 15 nm or less.
Suzuki does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 1 directed to the gas permeation protective film being formed on an upper surface and side surface of the phase shift film. Suzuki also does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 1 directed to the gas permeation protective film containing at least one of tantalum metal, a tantalum compound, a tungsten metal, a tungsten compound, a tellurium metal, and a tellurium compound.
However, from the same field of technology, Nam recites the formation of a blankmask and a photomask from the blankmask. In view of claims 1, 4, 5 and 12-15, Nam teaches [0048 and 0061] a protective film formed on a light-shielding film wherein the protective film comprises tantalum or tungsten and may further comprise oxygen, carbon or nitrogen in addition to tantalum or tungsten.
With regard to the limitation in claim 1, directed to the gas permeation protective film being formed on an upper surface and side surface of the phase shift film, from the same field of technology, Okubo teaches (Claim 6 and [0092]) a method of manufacturing a phase shift photomask having on a transparent substrate, a transfer pattern formed by patterning a thin film.
Okubo teaches the method comprises preparing a photomask blank having on the transparent substrate, a thin film made of a material containing a metal and silicon (phase shift film); forming a thin film pattern by patterning the thin film of the photomask blank; and forming a protective film on the formed thin film pattern so as to prevent a transfer characteristic of the thin film pattern from changing more than a predetermined degree even when exposure light having a wavelength of 200 nm or less is cumulatively irradiated on the thin film pattern. As seen in Figure 3 of Okubo, the protective film 4 is formed on upper and side surfaces of the phase shift film 2a.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also, with respect to claim 8, Okubo teaches the protective film being formed on transparent substrate 1 (Figure 3 above).
At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase shift mask taught by Suzuki to include the protective film composition taught by Nam and the protective film deposition teachings of Okubo in order to device a phase shift mask with improved optical properties. By combining the teachings of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve predictable results and enhance the transfer performance of the phase shift mask when employed in a photolithographic process. Therefore, claims 1, 4 and 5 are considered to be obvious in view of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo.
With respect to claim 2, in view of MPEP Chapter 2112.01, Section II, since the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo teaches a phase shift film that can include a transition metal, silicon, nitrogen and oxygen that includes molybdenum silicide, the phase shift film taught by the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo is presumed to have etching resistance to chlorine-based etching and favorable etching properties for fluorine-based etching because, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, claim 2 is considered to be obvious in view of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo teaches (Suzuki [0041-0043]) the phase difference and transmittance adjustment layer contains molybdenum and silicon (light semi-transmissive thin film includes molybdenum silicide (MoSi)). Therefore, claim 3 is considered to be obvious in view of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo.
With respect to claims 7-15 and 17-20, the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo teaches (Suzuki [0090, 0093,0112-0115 and 0151]) manufacturing a phase shift mask from a phase shift mask blank including steps of forming a light-shielding film on the phase shift film; forming a resist pattern on the light shielding film formed on the phase shift film; after forming the resist pattern, forming a pattern on the light shielding film by oxygen-containing chlorine-based etching (mixed gas of Cl2 and O2, [0151]); after forming the pattern on the light shielding film, forming a pattern on the phase shift film by fluorine-based etching (SF6 gas etchant, [0115]); after forming the pattern on the phase shift film, removing the resist pattern; and after removing the resist pattern, removing the light shielding film by the oxygen-containing chlorine-based etching from the phase shift film. Therefore, claims 7-15 and 17-20 are considered to be obvious in view of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0167185 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki, in view of Nam et al. (US 2015/0268552 A1), herein referred to as Nam, and Okubo et al. (US 2012/0034552 A1), herein referred to as Okubo, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Lare et al. (US 2022/0121105 A1), herein referred to as Van Lare.
The combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo teaches the limitations discussed above. However, the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of claims 6 and 16 directed to the protective layer comprising tellurium.
However, from the same field of technology, Van Lare recites the formation of an attenuated phase shift patterning device. In view of claims 6 and 16, Van Lare teaches [0108] a capping layer (protective layer) wherein the capping layer comprises tellurium (Te).
At the time of the filing date of the pending application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase shift mask blank and phase shift mask taught by the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo to further include the protective layer composition taught by Van Lare in order to prevent thickness loss of the phase shift film disposed below the protective layer. By substituting a protective layer comprising tellurium taught by Van Lare with the protective layer taught by the combination of Suzuki, Nam and Okubo, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve predictable results and reduce the formation of defective pattern regions on a phase shift mask blank and phase shift photomask. Therefore, claims 6 and 16 would have been obvious in view of Suzuki, Nam, Okubo and Van Lare.
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