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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are under consideration
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikebe (US20190369483A1, published 2019).
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-15,
Ikebe teaches reflective mask blank and reflective mask [abstract] comprising of a multilayer reflective film formed on a substrate (which reflects exposure light), an overlying protective film, and an overlying absorber film (which absorbs EUV/exposure light) [0003, 0053].
Ikebe teaches the protective film may be composed of a laminated structure consisting of not less than three layers, where the uppermost and lowermost layers are Ru, with an interposing Ru alloy between the uppermost and lowermost layers which may contain niobium (Nb) [0068-0069], reading on instant claims 1, 6-7, and 14-15.
The uppermost and lowermost layers are Ru (with an Ru content ratio of or close to 100 at%) [0068-0069], reading on instant claims 3 and 13.
Ikebe teaches the absorber film may comprise of materials containing Ta and N [0074-0077], reading on instant claims 4 and 9.
Ikebe teaches an etching mask (hard mask film) may be formed on the absorber layer, and may comprise of materials containing Cr [0101-0102], reading on instant claims 5 and 10.
Ikebe teaches forming a pattern on the absorber film [0103], and forming a reflective mask using their reflective mask blank [0127], reading on instant claim 11.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikebe (US20190369483A1, published 2019) as applied to claims 1, 6, 11, and 14 above.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 12, and 16,
Ikebe teaches the above limitations set forth.
Ikebe teaches the Ru content ratio of the Ru alloy may be 50 at% to 100 at% [0070], overlapping the ranges of instants claim 2 and 12. Per MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
While silent to the thicknesses of each of the layers of the protective film, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that each layer may be substantially the same thickness, in which case an Ru content ratio of the Ru alloy of 50 at% would result in an Ru content ratio of the protective film to be about 83 at%, reading on instant claims 8 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20170263444A1 teaches a similar reflective mask blank and reflective mask.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2261. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30 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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571) 272-3458. 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.
/Alexander N. Lee/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Prosecution Insights