Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/139,266

PELLICLE FOR EUV LITHOGRAPHY MASKS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THEREOF

Final Rejection §102§103§DP
Filed
Apr 25, 2023
Examiner
ANGEBRANNDT, MARTIN J
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
745 granted / 1351 resolved
-9.9% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+34.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
86 currently pending
Career history
1437
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
59.6%
+19.6% vs TC avg
§102
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§112
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1351 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §DP
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 . The response of the application has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendment and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection which they are directed to. 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. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Maruyama et al. 20200399128. Maruyama et al. 20200399128 in example 1 describes SWCNT which are vertically aligned on a substrate using alcohol catalyzed CVD, followed by coating with BNNT [0231-0244]. In example 2, a layer of randomly oriented CNTs are then coated with BNNT (BN is a two dimensional material). Images are shown in figure 4 [0244-0252]. In example 3, an oriented layer of SWCNTs are coated with BNNT [0253-0258] (see figure 5). In example 5, the thermal stability of the film formed in example 3 is heated and found to be stable up to about 700 degrees C. These were heated to almost 800 degrees C (in air) SWCNTs without the coated are shown to burn/decompose at about 450 degrees C in air (see figure 7). Example 7 is similar to example 3, but forms MoS2 nanotubes over the aligned CNTs. Example 8 is similar to example 2, but forms a BNNT over randomly oriented CNTs and then a MoS2 (which is a two dimensional material) layer/coating. PNG media_image1.png 299 446 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 428 246 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 216 212 media_image3.png Greyscale A structure comprising a 1st single-walled carbon nanotube is coated with a 2nd layer at least one selected from a first boron nitride, a first transition metal dichalcogenide, a second carbon, a first black phosphorus, and a first silicon. a 3rd layer, preferably a tubular 3rd layer, more preferably a tubular 3rd layer that is substantially coaxial with the 1st single-walled carbon nanotube, layered on the 2nd layer or the 2′nd layer, wherein the 3rd layer may be made of at least one selected from the group B consisting of a second boron nitride, a second transition metal dichalcogenide, a third carbon, a second black phosphorus, and a second silicon, where the transition metal dichalcogenide is The transition metal dichalcogenide is a compound represented by “MCh2” where M represents a transition metal such as Mo, W, Ti, Zr, Hf, Nb, and Ta, and Ch represents a chalcogen element, S, Se, and Te, and examples thereof include MoS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2 [0027,0031-0032,0117] The testing by heating (in air) in example 5 evidences the decomposition evidences the decomposition of the aligned CNTs at temperatures above 700 degrees C which is held to result in a layer BN nanotubes without carbon nanotubes. In the response of 02/24/2026, the applicant argues that Maruyama et al. 20200399128 does not teach the formation of two dimensional layers over the (outer) nanotube layer. The applicant cites Maruyama et al. 20200399128 (example 1, ) where the CNTs are vertically aligned. The examiner agrees that the example 1 does not meet the claims that require the interconnection between adjacent BN tubes.. Claims 1-10 do not require this. The examiner holds the position that example 1 which forms the BNNT and pyrolyzes the CNTs for 30 minutes forms a multilayered BNNT. Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Wang et al. CN 109706550. Wang et al. CN 109706550 (machine translation attached) in example 1 describes the dispersing CNTs in a solution of deionized water, melamine and boric acid, putting these in a microwave synthesis and heating to 100 degrees C. These are washed repeatedly and then put in an oven in a nitrogen atmosphere and heated at 400 degrees C and then heated at 800 degrees C the presence of air for 1 hour to yield hexagonal boron nitride fibers [0016]. Examples 2-6 are similar, but use different heating temperatures and times. Example 6 heats the nanotubes at 900 degrees C for 5 hours [0017-0021]. The heating described in the examples is considered sufficient to remove the carbon nanotubes. In the response of 2/24/2026, the applicant argues that Wang et al. CN 109706550 does not teach the formation of two dimensional layers over the (outer) nanotube layer The position of the examiner is that the treatment forms a multilayer two dimensional boron nitride coating over the randomly oriented CNTs which surrounds where CNTs touch in the randomly oriented CNT structure when these are heated in the oven. Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Bi et al. CN 101259960. Bi et al. CN 101259960 (machine translation attached) teaches in embodiment 2, the coating of carbon nanotube/nanowires with boron nitride (see figure 3), followed by the heating of the BN/CNT to 800 degrees C in the presence of air to remove the carbon (oxidation treatment) to yield the hollow/interconnected BN tubes shown in figure 4 (see page 5). PNG media_image4.png 331 297 media_image4.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 316 285 media_image5.png Greyscale The heating described in the example is considered sufficient to remove the carbon nanotubes. In the response of 2/24/2026, the applicant argues that Wang et al. CN 109706550 does not teach the formation of two dimensional layers over the (outer) nanotube layer The position of the examiner is that the treatment forms a multilayer two dimensional boron nitride coating over the randomly oriented CNTs which surrounds where CNTs touch in the randomly oriented CNT structure illustrated in figures 3 and 4 of Bi et al. CN 101259960. Claims 1-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. 20200399128. Maruyama et al. 20200399128 does not exemplify the testing of the embodiments where the coating is a transition metal dichalcogenide and the CNT is removed by heating or the case where random CNTs are used as the template and then removed by heating. With respect to claims 1-10, it would have been would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of example 5 by using the heating to test the thermal stability of embodiments where the BN coating is replaced with a transition metal dichalcogenide is a compound represented by “MCh2” where M represents a transition metal such as Mo, W, Ti, Zr, Hf, Nb, and Ta, and Ch represents a chalcogen element, S, Se, and Te, and examples thereof include MoS.sub.2 and WSe.sub.2. with a reasonable expectation of determining the thermal stability of resulting nanotubes. With respect to claims 1-10, it would have been would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of example 7 heating to remove the CNT templates as in example 5 with a reasonable expectation of determining the thermal stability of resulting MoS2 nanotubes. With respect to claims 1-14 and 17, it would have been would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of example 2 by using the heating of example 5 to test the thermal stability of embodiments where randomly oriented CNTs are used as the template with a reasonable expectation of determining the thermal stability of resulting nanotubes. With respect to claims 1-14 and 17-18, it would have been would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of examples 2 or 7 by using the heating of example 5 to test the thermal stability of embodiments where randomly oriented CNTs are used as the template and the coating is replaced with a transition metal dichalcogenide is a compound represented by “MCh2” where M represents a transition metal such as Mo, W, Ti, Zr, Hf, Nb, and Ta, and Ch represents a chalcogen element, S, Se, and Te, and examples thereof include MoS.sub.2 and WSe.sub.2. with a reasonable expectation of determining the thermal stability of resulting nanotubes. With respect to claims 1-14 and 17-18, it would have been would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of example 7 by using the heating of example 5 to test the thermal stability of embodiments where randomly oriented CNTs are used as the template with a reasonable expectation of determining the thermal stability of resulting nanotubes. The argued position does not apply to example 2, where random CNTs are used as the template for the BNNT, which takes place for 3 hours. The diameters of the BNNT is 4-7 nm (~1.5 nm thick) and a BNNT overcoat which is 7-15 nm (4 nm thick) . The random orientation, which is evidenced in the figures, clearly will include places where the CNT template nanotubes as in contact and the boron nitride forms around this intersection to form the bridged structure required by claims 11-14 and 17 (which are not rejected under this heading as the heating to remove the CNT template is not exemplified. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chatterjee et al. 20200272047, in view of Maruyama et al. 20200399128 and Jung et al. 20170038676. Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 teaches pellicle formed of planar sheets of CNTs with h-BN coated upon them (see figure 4B) [0044]. FIG. 3C illustrates the planar sheet of CNTs coated with boron nitride (BN) 312 and BN nanotubes (BNNTs) 314 forming a CNT-BN-BNNT nanocomposite pellicle 300. The coating of BN on the BN coated CNTs 312 may occur simultaneously as the BNNTs 314 grow. The BN coating on the BN coated CNTs 312 may have a thickness of about 2-5 nm. The CNT-BN-BNNT nanocomposite pellicle 300 may have a total thickness of about 30 nm or less and a length and width of about 30 nm. Each BN coated CNT 312 may be spaced from adjacent BN coated CNTs 312 or adjacent BNNTs 314. As such, the pellicle 300 may have spaces or gaps therethrough [0038] CNTs are etched by hydrogen radicals [0004]. BN is unreactive with hydrogen radicals. The BN coated CNTs 312 and the BNNTs 314 are transparent in UV light, and may have an EUV transmission of about 90% or greater. The pellicle 300 has increased thermomechanical strength [0040]. PNG media_image6.png 207 395 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 218 383 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 666 297 media_image8.png Greyscale Jung et al. 20170038676 teaches the formation of pellicles of nanowires of silicon (Si), carbon (C), nickel (Ni), platinum (Pt), gold (Au), ruthenium (Ru), indium phosphide (InP), gallium nitride (GaN), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), silicon dioxide (SiO2), titanium dioxide (TiO2), yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO), and silicon carbide (SiC), and a combination thereof [0016]. The pellicle membrane may further include a capping layer, the capping layer covering at least one surface of the porous thin film. In some example embodiments, the capping layer may cover the first surface of the porous film and a second surface of the porous film, and the first surface of the porous film and the second surface on opposing sides of the porous film. In some example embodiments, the capping layer may include a first material, and the porous film includes a second material, wherein the first material is different from the second material. The capping layer may include a first material selected from the group consisting of silicon carbide (SiC), silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), silicon oxynitride (SiON), yttrium oxide (Y2O3), yttrium nitride (YN), barium carbide (BaC.sub.2), barium nitride (Ba(NO.sub.3).sub.2), molybdenum (Mo), ruthenium (Ru), and rhodium (Rh), and a combination thereof [0020]. The use of a sacrificial template is taught with respect to figures 12A-E, where a substrate (502) is coated with a sacrificial guide pattern (584/586) . This template is coated with nanowires ((NW) in a solvent) and heated to remove the solvent. The sacrificial layer is removed and the porous film may be attached to a pellicle frame [0157-0167]. FIGS. 3G to 3H, a plurality of nanowires included in the porous thin film 120 of FIG. 1 may have a structure that is equal to and/or similar to at least one selected from the group consisting of, including but not limited to, a nanowire including a nanowire NWG having a crossed structure, and a nanowire NWH having a branched structure, for example, a tetrapod structure. However, example embodiments of inventive concepts are not limited to the examples shown in FIGS. 3A to 3H, and the porous thin film 120 may include nanowires having various shapes [0079]. PNG media_image9.png 93 266 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 86 249 media_image10.png Greyscale PNG media_image11.png 91 254 media_image11.png Greyscale PNG media_image12.png 60 280 media_image12.png Greyscale PNG media_image13.png 216 221 media_image13.png Greyscale PNG media_image14.png 244 196 media_image14.png Greyscale Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 does not exemplify embodiments where the carbon nanotubes have been removed. It would have been obvious to modify the formation of the pellicle taught by Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 by using the heating in air taught by Maruyama et al. 20200399128 to remove the carbon nanotubes which are taught by Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 at [0004,0040] as sensitive to degradation by hydrogen radicals, while BN coated CNTs and BNNTs are not with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle membrane which is EUV transparent mounted on a frame, noting that the use of sacrificial templates is known in the pellicle art as evidenced by the teachings of Jung et al. 20170038676 with respect to figures 12A-E. In the response of 2/24/2026, the applicant argues that Chatterjee et al. uses the BN coating to protect the CNTs. While Chatterjee et al. does not explicitly describe the two dimensional nature of boron nitride, Maruyama et al. 20200399128 and Chatterjee et al. describes the CNT-BN-BNNT where the BNNT is clearly a two dimensional material and Jung et al. 20170038676 and Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 clearly establish the use of BNNT in pellicles and removing the sacrificial template CNTs will increase the transmissivity of the pellicle, because there is less material in the pellicle film. The rejection stands 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 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/766358 (20250328070). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 recites: A method of manufacturing a pellicle, comprising: forming a membrane comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes over a filter; attaching the membrane to a frame; forming an inorganic nanotube surrounding each of the carbon nanotubes, wherein the inorganic nanotubes are made of a different material than the carbon nanotubes; and at least partially removing the carbon nanotubes. Claim 3 recites: The method according to claim 1, wherein the different material includes one or more of boron nitride, hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), SiC, MoS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, WS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2, SnS.sub.2, SnS, ZrO.sub.2, ZrO, and TiO.sub.2. Claim 4 recites: The method according to claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are at least partially removed by oxidizing the carbon nanotubes. Claim 5 recites: The method according to claim 4, wherein oxidizing the carbon nanotubes includes heating the carbon nanotubes at a temperature ranging from 500° C. to 700° C. Claim 6 recites : The method according to claim 4, wherein the carbon nanotubes are completely removed. Claim 8 recites: A pellicle, comprising: a membrane including a plurality of inorganic nanotube bundles, wherein each of the plurality of inorganic nanotube bundles includes a plurality of first inorganic nanotubes surrounded by a second inorganic nanotube, wherein the first and second inorganic nanotubes independently include one or more of boron nitride, hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), SiC, MoS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, WS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2, SnS.sub.2, SnS, ZrO.sub.2, ZrO, and TiO.sub.2; and a frame disposed over the membrane. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process recited in claim 1 by completely removing the carbon nanotubes as in claim 6 and using two dimensional materials boron nitride, MoS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, WS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2, SnS.sub.2, SnSe.sub.2 as in claims 3 and 8 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle. Further, it would have been obvious to use the heating in the presence of oxygen recited in claims 4 and 5 to facilitate that removal with a reasonable expectation of success. Other claims including claim 8 combined with the process claims render the articles claims 19 and 20 of the instant application obvious. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The examiner disagrees, pointing out that in each applicant, CNTs are used as a template for growth of 2D materials such as BN, MoS2, MoSe2, and the like and then the CNTs are removed. This rejection, made to prevent dual ownership in the future, may be withdrawn. The applicant has not pointed out specific differences in the claims of the two applications. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al. CN 103803513 (machine translation attached), teaches a MWCNT which is coated with boron nitride to form a BNNT and then the composite is heated at 620 degrees C for 40 hours to remove the carbon nanotube leaving h-BN [0035-0041]. Embodiments 2-4 are similar, [0042-0076] Hou et al. CN 103193485 (machine translation attached) teaches a carbon fiber which is used as a template for forming BNNT , where the carbon fiber is removed by heating at 550 degrees C for 2 hours and then a flow of nitrogen to yield hexagonal BN [0015-0017]. Examples 2-3 are similar. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm 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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 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. MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT Primary Examiner Art Unit 1737 /MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 March 10, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP
Feb 24, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578652
PHOTOMASK AND METHODS FOR MEASURING AND MANUFACTURING THE PHOTOMASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566369
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING A PHOTOMASK FROM A BLANK MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12566377
MULTIPLE PATTERNING WITH ORGANOMETALLIC PHOTOPATTERNABLE LAYERS WITH INTERMEDIATE FREEZE STEPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554191
PELLICLE MEMBRANE AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12535740
INTERSTITIAL TYPE ABSORBER FOR EXTREME ULTRAVIOLET MASK
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+34.5%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1351 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