Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/921,089

REFLECTIVE PHOTOMASK BLANK AND REFLECTIVE PHOTOMASK

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Oct 24, 2022
Examiner
FRASER, STEWART A
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tekscend Photomask Corp.
OA Round
4 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1135 granted / 1320 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1365
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
45.2%
+5.2% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1320 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, 19 and 20 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 6-9, 14 and 15 are allowable. Claims 2-4, 10-13, 16, 19 and 20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 35 U.S.C. 103 in the office action dated 12/11/2025. The previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112(d) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 2-4, 10-12, 16, 19 and 20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments filed 3/11/2026. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections presented in the office action dated 12/11/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ishibashi. 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 2-4, 10-12, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama et al. (JP-2006190900A), herein referred to as Nishiyama, cited in Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/24/2022, in view of Ishibashi et al. (US 2005/0208389 A1), herein referred to as Ishibashi. With respect to amended claims 2 and 10, as well as claims 3 and 11, Nishiyama teaches (Figure 6 and [0015, 0037-0041]) a reflective photomask blank for EUV exposure wherein a multilayer reflective film, a buffer layer, a light absorbing film containing indium (for instance indium oxide, 27 nm film thickness) and an anti-reflection film are sequentially laid upon a glass substrate, and also teaches an EUV mask produced using the above reflective photomask blank. Nishiyama further teaches the light absorbing film and anti-reflection film can function in combination as a light absorbing layer. Nishiyama indicates the thickness of the light absorbing layer is preferably as thin as possible, in order to suppress spatial image asymmetry and XY direction differences, caused by the oblique incidence of light on the mask. Nishiyama does not appear to explicitly teach the limitations of amended claims 2 and 10 wherein the outermost layer of the low reflective portion includes the claimed compounds and does not include silicon. However, from the same field of technology, Ishibashi recites the formation of a reflective mask blank and a reflective mask. In view of amended claims 2 and 10, Ishibashi teaches (Claim 9) an absorber layer that comprises an upper layer (outermost layer) and a lower layer. The upper layer can include elements such as gallium, palladium, hafnium, titanium or an oxide, nitride or oxynitride thereof. In view of claims 4, 12 and 16, Ishibashi teaches (Claim 11) the lower layer of the absorber layer can include tantalum. In view of claims 19 and 20, Ishibashi teaches [0085] the upper layer can be configured to have a thickness of 10 to 20 nm (overlapping the claimed limitation of a thickness of 1 nm or more). Ishibashi further teaches [0106] the absorber layer thickness can be adjusted within the range of 35 to 60 nm (overlapping the claimed ranges in claims 19 and 20). At the time of the filing date of the application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reflective photomask blank and reflective photomask taught by Nishiyama to include the teachings of Ishibashi involving forming an absorber layer having an upper layer that contains the specified materials discussed above for the purpose of forming a reflective photomask blank and reflective photomask that reduces shadowing effects and improves the formation of high resolution absorber patterns during manufacture of the reflective photomask blank and reflective photomask. Additionally, Applicant’s claimed inventions in claims 2-4, 10-12, 16, 19 and 20 are considered to be obvious based on being able to modify the thickness of the absorber layer. In order to reduce the thickness of the absorber layer, for the purpose of minimizing shadowing effects, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize and select the materials that are utilized in the absorber layer as well as the materials used in the outermost layer so that reflectance towards DUV light, which is pattern inspection light, is sufficiently low, while achieving improved processability, mask washing resistance, durability, and stacking affinity with the absorber layer. Accordingly, Applicant’s claimed inventions in claims 2-4, 10-12, 16, 19 and 20 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the present application. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1, 6-9, 14 and 15 are considered to be allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed reflective photomask blank and reflective photomask comprising the specified configuration of the low reflective portion wherein the low reflective portion is a deposited structure of at least two or more layers including an absorption layer and an outermost layer, in which at least one layer of the absorption layer includes a total of 50 atomic% or more of one or more selected from a first material group, and the outermost layer includes a total of 80 atomic% or more of at least one or more selected from a second material group, the first material group includes tellurium (Te), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), bismuth (Bi), and oxides, nitrides, and oxynitrides thereof, and the second material group includes tantalum (Ta), aluminum (Al), ruthenium (Ru), molybdenum (Mo), zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), vanadium (V), and oxides, nitrides, oxynitrides, and indium oxides (In.sub.xO.sub.y (y > 1.5x)) thereof. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 24, 2022
Application Filed
May 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 09, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 11, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603312
FUEL CELL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603306
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DRAINING RESIDUAL WATER OF A FUEL CELL FOR A VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596299
EUV TRANSMISSIVE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591173
SUBSTRATE WITH MULTILAYER REFLECTIVE FILM, REFLECTIVE MASK BLANK, REFLECTIVE MASK, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591172
EUV TRANSMISSIVE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+14.2%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1320 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month