CTNF 18/456,412 CTNF 75663 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, the claims recites “formed on the film ”, which appears that it should read “formed on the reflective film” as the first layer of absorbing film would be applied over/ on the reflective film, not on the absorbing film . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2-8 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. The ratios and ranges as set forth in the instant claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 (with claims 4-6 dependent upon the claims) are recited with “ ~ “ rather than “ – “. “ ~ “ is intended to mean about, thus for example, 1 ~50 at % of oxygen would read 1 to about 50, rather than 1 to 50. The specification uses both “~ “and “ - “ (see [0033]) therefore it is unclear as to which range applicant intends. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretations, therefore, Ta: Sb 2:8 to about 6:4 at %, 3:7 to about 5:5 at %,1 to about 50 at % of oxygen, and 5 to about 30 at % of nitrogen. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (2021/0341828) . Liu et al disclose a EUV mask and absorber material wherein the reference mask includes a substrate, a stack of reflecting layer, a capping layer, and absorbing layer having a plurality of bilayers comprising a first layer of Si and a second layer selected from the group consisting of that including TaSb (and its oxide and nitride; abstract). The second layer preferably comprises TaSb (claims 2; instant claim 1) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (2021/0302826) . Liu et al disclose an EUV mask blank comprising a substrate, a reflecting layer, and a bi-layer absorbing layer, wherein the second layer includes TaSb (claims 1 and 2; instant claim 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al . Liu et al has been discussed above. The reference further teaches that the content of Ta is about 21.9 to 78.2 wt % and about 21.8 to 78.1 wt % Sb ([0074], claim 3, 13), which would fall within the scope of the instant claims 2 and 3 (wherein Ta:Sb is 2:8 to 6:4 at % and 3:7 to 5:5 at %, respectively). The reference further teaches that the layer may be doped with nitrogen or oxygen in an amount of about 0.1 to 5 wt % ([0090]; instant claims 4-8), wherein the range overlaps that of the instant claims, and the oxygen or nitrogen dopant would be in the second layer (upper) layer of the absorbing film. With respect to the instant claim 9, the reference teaches a similar mask and layer/ film, and usable in EUV/ 13.5 nm light ([0003]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed property, however, given the similarity between the reference material and that of the instant claims one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material/ mask of the reference to inherently possess similar properties and meet the limitations of the instant claim 9 for the coefficient (k) of 0.05 or more for EUV light of 13.5 nm. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Liu et al, choosing to include the Ta and Sb in amounts falling within the claimed ratio of 2:8 to 6:4 at % as taught by the reference. The resultant material would meet the instant claims 2-9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al ‘826 . Liu et al has been discussed above. The reference further teaches that the content of Ta is about 21.9 to 78.2 wt % and about 21.8 to 78.1 wt % Sb ([0070]-[0077], claim 3), which would fall within the scope of the instant claims 2 and 3 (wherein Ta:Sb is 2:8 to 6:4 at % and 3:7 to 5:5 at %, respectively). The reference further teaches that the layer may be doped with nitrogen or oxygen in an amount of about 0.1 to 5 wt % ([0091]; instant claims 4-8), wherein the range overlaps that of the instant claims, and the oxygen or nitrogen dopant would be in the second layer (upper) layer of the absorbing film. With respect to the instant claim 9, the reference teaches a similar mask and layer/ film, and usable in EUV/ 13.5 nm light ([0004]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed property, however, given the similarity between the reference material and that of the instant claims one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material/ mask of the reference to inherently possess similar properties and meet the limitations of the instant claim 9 for the coefficient (k) of 0.05 or more for EUV light of 13.5 nm. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Liu et al, choosing to include the Ta and Sb in amounts falling within the claimed ratio of 2:8 to 6:4 at % as taught by the reference. The resultant material would meet the instant claims 2-9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (JP 2007-273678 and its machine translation) . Hosoya discloses an EUV mask blank comprising a substrate, a reflecting layer, a buffer layer, and an absorbing layer, wherein the absorbing layer mainly comprises Ta (abstract), with another element including Sb (instant claims 1 and 10). Examples of the Ta-containing absorber layer include Ta 5 Sb 4 wherein the alloy would comprise about 55 at% Ta, 45 at % Sb, and the Ta 3 Sb alloy, about 75 at% Ta and 25 at% Sb, falling within the scope of the ratios as set forth by the instant claims 2 and 3 ([0027], [0028], table 2). The reference further teaches a second Ta-containing layer, having the same types of elements, and carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. The buffer layer as described is located between the reflecting film and the absorbing film, but is composed of the same materials and would have similar properties, and capable of being another absorber layer. The buffer layer can be considered as a first layer of absorbing film ([0011]-[0013]), with the absorber film being the second as per the instant claim 6. The absorber film may further comprise an additional element including nitrogen, carbon, or oxygen ([0007]); instant claim 4). The reference is silent with respect to the amount, however, the reference teaches the elements are included to affect the amorphous nature of the absorber film, surface smoothness, film stress, and/or adhesion to the reflective stack ([0012]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived art the claimed amounts of oxygen and nitrogen as set forth by the instant claims 5, 7, and 8, through routine experimentation and optimization of the layer properties as described above. With respect to the instant claim 9, the reference teaches a similar mask and layer/ film, and usable in EUV/ 13.5 nm light ([0003]). The reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed property, however, given the similarity between the reference material and that of the instant claims one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the material/ mask of the reference to inherently possess similar properties and meet the limitations of the instant claim 9 for the coefficient (k) of 0.05 or more for EUV light of 13.5 nm. Given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material of Hosoya, choosing to include an absorber film with Ta and Sb. The resultant material would meet the instant claims . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim s 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 of copending Application No. 18/456353 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘353 application claims an EUV mask blank comprising a substrate, a reflective film, and a layer formed on the reflective film comprising Ta and Sb. The layer comprises Ta to Sb 3:7 to 7:3 wherein the Ta may be higher than Sb. The layer may further comprise nitrogen (1 to 1- at %), oxygen (1 to 10 at %), and claims a multilayer film (claims 1-7, 25). The material would possess similar properties such as the coefficient (k) of 0.05 or more for EUV light of 13.5 nm (also the material is defined by having this property by the application). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material of the ‘353 application, with the resultant material also meeting the limitations of the instant claims 1-10 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm. 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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. /AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 2 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 3 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 4 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 5 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 6 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 7 Art Unit: 1722 Application/Control Number: 18/456,412 Page 8 Art Unit: 1722