DETAILED ACTION
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, at lines 10-11, Claim 14, at lines 13-14, and Claim 15, at lines 16-17, newly recite, “wherein the mask blank does not include any film containing palladium as a constituent element”. The instant disclosure does not disclose the newly recited limitation. Nothing in the instant specification teaches or discloses the complete exclusion of palladium in any of the films that are coated onto the mask substrate. The instant specification in paragraph nos. [0075]-[0076], discloses phase shift film that includes material containing transition metal and in the listing of the transition metals in the specification, lists a group of transition metals along with “or the like” and suggests that any of the transition metals can be used. Nothing in the specification or drawings suggests the non-inclusion, specifically, of palladium or any other transition metal. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17, under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over pending claims 1-17, see paragraph no. 3, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0161837(Hamamoto et al). Hamamoto et al., discloses a mask blank that includes a multilayer reflective stack, an absorber film and discloses the arithmetic mean roughness (claimed Sa) on the surface of the absorber film is not more than 0.5nm (reads on claimed less than 1.0 nm), and Hamamoto et al., in [0106], discloses that the maximum height (claimed Sz) is not more than 5nm and therefore, the maximum height/arithmetic mean roughness =5nm/0.5nm = 10 (reads on claimed 14 or less) and is the same claimed Sz/Sa ratio recited in the claims. Furthermore, in the disclosure of Hamamoto et al., none of the layers that form the stack on the mask substrate include palladium as one of its compositional components.
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 Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 October 2, 2026.
