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 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.
Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites that the first and second sub-resolution patterns “protrude” from the main patterns”. However, the claim fails to define what constitutes “protruding” including:
The reference boundary from which protrusion is measured.
The direction of protrusion.
Whether physical attachment to the main pattern is required and the minimum structural extent necessary to qualify as protruding.
Absent such clarification, the scope of the claim is unclear.
Furthermore, the claim recites a “first distance” and “second distance”, both greater than
zero. The claim does not specify from which reference points the distances are measured, nor does it define the direction of measurement. Without a defined measurement convention, the claim lacks objective boundaries.
Notwithstanding the above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) and for purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In particular, the term “protrude from” is interpreted broadly to mean extending outward relative to a boundary of another feature, without requiring integral formation or a specific geometric orientation. The recited “distance” is interpreted as a measurable spatial separation between features without limitation to a particular measurement convention. Under this broadest reasonable interpretation, the prior art of record renders the claimed subject matter unpatentable for the reasons set forth below.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kodama et al (U.S.Pat. 9,953,126 B2) in view of Yang et al (U.S.Pat. 7,939,225).
With respect to claim 1, Komeda discloses a photomask (see figure 3A) comprising substantially all limitations of the instant claim such as: a plurality of main patterns (11); a plurality of first sub-resolution patterns (12) disposed aside the plurality of main patterns; and a plurality of second sub-resolution patterns (18) disposed between and connected to adjacent two of the plurality of first-sub resolution patterns. Thus, Kodama discloses the claimed arrangement of main patterns, first sub-resolution patterns and second sub-resolution patterns connected between adjacent first sub-resolution patterns. However, Komada does not explicitly disclose that the first and second sub-resolution patterns protrude from the main patterns. Yang discloses a photomask (200) and teaches providing edge correction features, including hammer head (223) and serif structures, extending from edges of main mask patterns (201) in order to compensate for lithographic distortion such as line-end shortening and corner rounding. These correction features protrude from the main pattern boundaries. It would have been obvious to modify the assist feature geometry of Komada so that the first and second sub-resolution patterns protrude from the main patterns as taught by Yang in order to improve pattern fidelity and generate the desired printed pattern.
With respect to claim 2, Komada as modified by Yang, lacks to show “an extension direction of the first sub-resolution pattern is perpendicular to an illumination polar axis direction of an exposure apparatus, and an extension direction of the second sub-resolution pattern is parallel to the illumination polar axis direction of the exposure apparatus”, as claimed. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to align patterns relative to illumination axes for the purpose of improving the quality of the printed images since aligning features relative to illumination axes constitutes a routine optimization parameter in lithography.
As to claim 3, wherein the main patterns extend along a first direction (Y direction), the first sub-resolution patterns extend along the first direction (Y direction) and the second sub-resolution patterns extend along a second direction (X) perpendicular to the first direction.
As to claim 4, wherein a difference between a phase of the first sub-resolution patterns and a phase of the second sub-resolution pattern is 180 degrees (see figure 3A).
As to claim 5, wherein a phase of the main patterns and a phase of the second sub-resolution patterns are both 180 degrees and a phase of the first sub-resolution patterns is 0 degrees.
As to claim 6, wherein the main patterns (11), the first sub-resolution patterns (12) and the second sub-resolution patterns have the same transmittance.
As to claim 7, wherein the second sub-resolution patterns (18) have the same pitch (see figure 3A).
As to claims 8-9, Komada discloses periodic assist placement and strip patterns adjacent to main patterns (see figure 1A and 3A).
As to claim 10, it is noted that sub-resolution assist features (12, 18) not intended to print are well known in the art.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Templeton et al (US 2001/0034124 A10 discloses a photomask with either hammerhead or serit structures and has been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
2/23/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882