DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/25/2026 for US Patent Application No. 18/360853 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-6, 10-17 and 21-26 are currently pending. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claims 21-26 are new. Claims 7-9 and 18-20 have been cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections presented in the office action dated 3/27/2026 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/25/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection based on Ikebe and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on Ikebe, Ikebe ‘557, Kim and Oh have been fully considered and are persuasive. The aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 21-26 were newly added in the response filed 6/25/2026. Prior art rejections for new claims 21-26 are provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US 2021/0096456 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki teaches (Figure 8F) a reflective mask comprising a substrate having a first side and a second side opposite the first side 1, a multilayered reflective film 5 formed on the first side of the substrate, a protective film 6 (capping layer) formed on the multilayered reflective film, and an absorber film 7 formed on the protective film.
PNG
media_image1.png
172
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki further teaches [0110-0111] the absorber film can be configured to be a multilayered absorber film comprised of a lower absorber film and an upper absorber film and the absorber film (either the lower absorber film or the upper absorber film) may include metals such as palladium (Pd), molybdenum (Mo) or niobium (Nb).
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (US 2022/0382148 A1), herein referred to as Hsu.
Regarding claim 25, Hsu teaches (Figure 1) an EUV mask 100 comprising a substrate 102, a multilayer stack 110 formed on the substrate, a capping layer 120 formed on the multilayer stack, and a patterned absorber layer 140P formed on the capping layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hsu further teaches [0068] the absorber layer may be configured to be one layer. In view of the limitation recited in claim 25 of the single layer being comprised of first and second elements that are homogenously mixed, Hsu teaches [0070] tantalum- based alloys, such as tantalum ruthenium (TaRu), tantalum molybdenum (TaMo), tantalum niobium (TaNb) or tantalum palladium (TaPd), can be included in the absorber layer. Since the first and second elements comprising the tantalum-based alloys are present in equal atomic percentages (50 percent Ta and 50 percent of Ru, Mo, Nb or Pd), the tantalum-based alloys taught by Hsu are considered to be homogenously mixed in the absorber layer.
Regarding claim 26, Hsu teaches [0071] the absorber layer may further be doped with oxygen or nitrogen.
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 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2021/0096456 A1), herein referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding claims 22-23, Suzuki teaches [0111-0113] the absorber film may be configured to include tantalum and a metal such as molybdenum (Mo) or niobium (Nb). Regarding claim 24, Suzuki further teaches combinations of metals, such as palladium (Pd) with vanadium (V), titanium (Ti) or niobium (Nb), may be incorporated in the absorber layer.
Since Suzuki teaches the absorber layer may include a multilayered configuration, 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 include metals in a first and second layer of a multilayered absorber film, as specified by the metals for absorber films taught by Suzuki, in order to optimize the EUV light absorbing properties of the absorber film while also improving the etch processing properties of the absorber film. Therefore, claims 22-24 would have been obvious at the time the instant application was filed.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-6 and 10-17 are considered to be allowable over the prior art of record. The prior art of record does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed attenuated phase-shifting mask that included the specified absorber layer configuration recited in claim 1. Claims 2-6 and 10-17 are concurrently allowable because they depend from claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights