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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 9-10 and 15, as well as Applicant’s addition of claims 27-28 is acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the independent claims of the instant application to recite that the pellicle membrane has a transmittance of EUV light of about 80% or more, and a reflectance of EUV light of about 0.04% or less. Applicant argues that the previous rejection should be withdrawn because a) the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight, b) the claims reflect unexpected results, and c) the prior art reference Kim fails to overcome the deficiencies of Tu and Nozawa. These arguments are addressed separately below.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the previous rejection relies on impermissible hindsight, Applicant argues that the office action relied upon the Applicant’s specification to support the combination of Tu and Nozawa. In particular, Applicant argues that Tu and Nozawa do not teach or suggest the additional details that result in the surface roughness recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 16, and thus one having ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at the surface roughness recited by said claims. In the case of the instant application, as noted in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the office action filed 17 July 2025, the Examiner alleged that the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious a technique in which a nickel catalyst layer (specifically, a (110) crystal plane nickel layer) is used to form a graphene membrane utilizing chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Some of the conditions of the CVD process are in accordance with those utilized by the instant application’s process. For instance, Tu describes the deposition of the graphene layer on the nickel layer occurring between 600 and 1000 °C (Tu, paragraph 0021), which aligns with the temperatures suggested by the Applicant’s specification (paragraph 0054 of the instant application’s specification). Tu utilizes hydrogen gas during the CVD process, wherein the hydrogen gas has a glow rate between 10 sccm and 1000 sccm (Tu, paragraph 0021), which also aligns with the hydrogen flow rate described by the instant application’s specification (paragraph 0054 of the instant application’s specification). Tu doesn’t describe how the carbon source is provided to the CVD chamber to form the graphene. However, Nozawa teaches providing methane or ethylene in a heated atmosphere (such as 850 °C) with hydrogen (Nozawa, paragraph 0096). Similarly, the applicant’s method provides methane into the CVD chamber (paragraph 0054 of the instant application’s specification). It is apparent that the methodology obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa is extremely similar to, if not identical to, the methodology utilized by the Applicant. The combination of Tu and Nozawa are silent in regards to the surface roughness, as previously acknowledged by the Examiner. However, when comparing the method of the instant application with the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa, there is little to no difference between the Applicant’s manufacturing method and the manufacturing method obtained from the combination of Tu and Nozawa. Thus, there is little reason to believe that one having ordinary skill in the art, when performing the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa, would not similarly observe the claimed surface roughness values of the catalyst layer before and after membrane formation. Furthermore, MPEP 2145 II. states that prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by recognizing properties present but not recognized in the prior art. Since the methods of the instant application and the prior art are practically identical, the claimed method is prima facie obviousness in view of Tu and Nozawa. The acknowledgement of properties not disclosed by the prior art (i.e. the surface roughness of the catalyst layer) by the Applicant does not rebut the obviousness, as one having ordinary skill in the art would expect, absent of evidence to the contrary, that the surface roughness observed by combining Tu and Nozawa would be similar or identical to the surface roughness observed by the Applicant. Therefore, this argument is not considered persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the claims reflect unexpected results, the Applicant argues that controlling the surface roughness of the catalyst layer directly enables the resulting membrane to exhibit specific EUV transmittance and reflectance properties. Therefore, the Applicant argues, the claimed invention exhibits unexpected results, as the prior art does not teach or suggest the influence of surface roughness on the EUV performance. Applicant cites paragraphs 0003, 0057, 0058, and 0075 of the instant application’s specification to support the allegations of unexpected results. Per MPEP 716.02(a) III., the presence of an unexpected property is evidence of nonobviousness. However, it is unclear that the Applicant’s alleged unexpected results are truly unexpected. For instance, US 20170090279 A1 (hereby referred to as Ono), which is not relied upon to reject the claims of the instant application, but merely is cited to rebut the Applicant’s arguments, teaches a pellicle membrane used for EUV lithography (see Ono, paragraph 0050). The pellicle membrane includes an inorganic material (Ono, paragraph 0049), which is taught to be preferably graphite (Ono, paragraph 0097). The transmittance of the pellicle membrane with respect to EUV light having a wavelength of 13.5 nm is preferably 90% or more (Ono, paragraph 0158). Thus, it is seemingly known in the art that graphite membranes have the transmittance characteristics alleged to be unexpected by the Applicant. Ono also teaches that the reflectance of the membrane can be decreased by optimizing the membrane thickness (Ono, paragraph 0092). Thus, the reflectance characteristics alleged to be unexpected are also seemingly known in the prior art. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the claimed EUV characteristics of the membrane layer is unexpected for a pellicle membrane formed of a carbon-based material, such as graphite. Furthermore, MPEP 716.02(b) establishes that the Applicant has the burden to establish that the results are both unexpected and significant. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support the allegation of unexpected results. Similarly, MPEP 716.02(d) II. states that the Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range (in the case of the instant application, this would be the surface roughness values) to show that the claimed range is critical to the unexpected result. The Applicant has not sufficiently met the criteria outlined by MPEP 716.02 regarding allegations of unexpected results. Therefore, the argument that the claimed invention demonstrates unexpected results is not found to be persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that the prior art reference Kim fails to overcome the deficiencies of Tu and Nozawa, Applicant argues that Kim does not teach the features alleged by the Applicant to not be taught or rendered obvious by Tu and Nozawa. However, as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments in regards to Tu and Nozawa are not found to be persuasive. Therefore, the teachings of Kim do not need to make up for the alleged deficiencies of Tu and Nozawa (see pages 12-13 of the Applicant’s arguments filed 17 October 2025), as it is still the Examiner’s stance that Tu and Nozawa render obvious the listed limitations in the Applicant’s remarks. Therefore, this argument is not found to be persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 16-20, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0059535 A1 (hereby referred to as Tu) in view of US 2014/0080291 A1 (hereby referred to as Nozawa).
Regarding Claims 1 and 26, Tu discloses a graphene pellicle for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. Tu discloses a method of making a pellicle having a graphene layer, which is depicted by the flowchart of Fig. 2 (paragraph 0018 and Fig. 2). The method comprises obtaining a substrate (paragraph 0019), depositing a first material layer over the substrate (paragraph 0020), and depositing a graphene layer over the first material layer (paragraph 0021). The first material layer, which is referred to as the graphene substrate, preferably is a nickel (Ni) layer (paragraph 0020). The nickel layer disclosed by Tu has a thickness ranging up to 500 nm (paragraph 0020). The graphene layer may be a multilayer graphene (paragraph 0021), thus making the graphene layer analogous to the graphite layer of the instant invention, as graphite is essentially a graphene multilayer (paragraph 0011). The graphene layer is deposited on the nickel layer using chemical vapor deposition (CVD), wherein the reaction chamber is set to a temperature between 600 and 1,000 °C (paragraph 0021). Tu discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer can be designed according to the wavelength of the EUV radiation to be used (paragraph 0021). Tu further discloses that the pellicle assembly is suitable for use in EUV lithography processes (paragraph 0027).
However, Tu is silent in regards to the crystal plane of the nickel layer. Nozawa teaches a method for producing a graphene nano-ribbon. Nozawa teaches that the method includes the steps of forming a crystalline catalytic metal layer of copper or nickel on a (110) plane or a (112) plane of a MgAl2O4 single-crystal substrate or a MgO single-crystal substrate and growing graphene on the catalytic metal layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Nozawa, paragraph 0032). When the single-crystal substrate has a (110) plane, the crystal of the crystalline catalytic metal layer grows in such a manner that the surface of the catalytic metal layer is a (110) plane (Nozawa, paragraph 0062). See Table 1 of Nozawa (pages 7 and 8 of Nozawa’s disclosure), which shows that the catalytic metal layer has the same dominant plane as the substrate.
Tu and Nozawa are both silent in regards to the surface roughness of the catalyst layer. However, the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious a technique in which a nickel catalyst layer (specifically a (110) crystal plane nickel layer, per the teachings of Nozawa) is used to form a graphene membrane utilizing CVD conditions in accordance with the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the surface roughness of the nickel catalyst layer before and after the CVD process would be within the ranges recited by the instant application’s claims. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect these properties because the materials and processing steps are similar or identical to the materials and processing steps recited by the instant application. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the nickel catalyst layer recited by the instant application’s claims is unique compared to a similar nickel catalyst layer, and thus the surface roughness of the catalyst layer when performing the method obtained by combining the teachings of Tu and Nozawa would be expected to be similar or identical to that of the instant application. Refer to MPEP 2144.09, which states that chemical species having close structural similarity are expected to having similar properties. The surface roughness increase would be a result of the reaction occurring in the catalyst layer, per the instant application’s specification (see paragraph 0056 of the instant application’s specification). As the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would similarly induce a catalytic reaction in the nickel catalyst layer during the CVD process, one having ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect the surface roughness of the catalyst layer after the formation of the membrane layer to have increased due to the catalytic reaction in the catalyst layer. Similarly, Tu and Nozawa are silent in regards to the optical properties of the membrane. However, since the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious the method according to instant claim 1 and the combination of Tu and Nozawa utilizes similar or identical materials to produce the membrane, it would be expected that the membrane produced by the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would possess similar or identical optical properties to the optical properties recited by instant claim 1. Furthermore, Tu discloses that the membrane is utilized in EUV lithography (paragraph 0027), suggesting that the optical properties recited by instant claim 10 would be achieved by the membrane disclosed by Tu.
Tu and Nozawa are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of depositing graphene layers on nickel-coated substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to use nickel having a (110) plane as the dominant crystal plane, as taught by Nozawa, as the first material layer in the pellicle manufacturing method disclosed by Tu because when the catalytic metal layer has the (110) plane, a graphene film having an edge portion with an armchair type structure is produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0046), which means that specific electrical conductivity and magnetic properties can be obtained (Nozawa, paragraph 0007). Furthermore, utilizing the (110) plane of the catalytic metal layer allows for a graphene film with a controlled structure to be produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0099).
Regarding Claims 2 and 28, Tu discloses that the nickel layer may have a thickness of up to 500 nm (Tu, paragraph 0020). Thus, the thickness of the nickel catalyst layer being 500 nm, as recited by instant claim 28, would be an obvious variant of the thickness described by Tu. Refer to MPEP 2144.05 I.
However, Tu is silent in regards to the crystal size. Nozawa teaches that the catalytic metal layer is a single crystal (see Nozawa, Table 1 on pages 7 and 8 of Nozawa’s publication). Furthermore, Nozawa teaches that the thickness of catalytic metal layer controls the width of the graphene layer formed thereon (Nozawa, paragraph 0036). The thickness of the catalytic metal layer may be below 10 nm (Nozawa, paragraph 0067), suggesting that the metal crystal is inherently also below 10 nm, as the crystal cannot be larger than the layer itself.
Tu and Nozawa are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of depositing graphene on nickel-coated substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a crystal size below 100 nm, as suggested by Nozawa, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Tu and Nozawa (as applied to claim 1 above) because when the catalyst layer is a single crystal having a size below 100 nm, graphene can be selectively grown on the surface of the catalytic metal layer (Nozawa, paragraph 0108-0110, see also Table 1) and the width of the graphene formed will be that of the thickness of the catalytic metal layer (Nozawa, paragraph 0100).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Tu discloses that the CVD chamber is maintained at a temperature of 600 to 1,000 °C to segregate carbon from the bulk to the surface of the nickel layer (paragraph 0021). The reaction chamber is then cooled rapidly at a rate of 500 °C/min to 5 °C/min to allow the carbon to deposit (paragraph 0021). Accordingly, the deposition process occurs over the time span of minutes to hundreds of minutes. Thus, it would have been obvious to keep the CVD chamber disclosed by Tu at an elevated temperature for a time between 1 minute to 120 minutes to perform a sintering process to produce the pellicle according to the combination of Tu and Nozawa.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Tu discloses that an additional layer may be formed between the substrate and the nickel layer (paragraph 0020). The additional layer may be a silicon oxide layer (paragraph 0020). Thus, it would have been obvious to include a silicon oxide layer between the substrate and the nickel layer in the method obtained from the combination of Tu and Nozawa. Tu does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the silicon oxide layer. However, Tu discloses that the substrate is removed by an etching process, wherein a thin layer (on the order of angstroms thick) of the substrate remains such that the nickel layer is not removed and the graphene film is not damaged (paragraph 0023). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the additional silicon oxide layer exists as a protective buffer layer between the catalyst layer and the substrate and would arrive at the thickness recited by instant claim 6 through routine optimization of the etching behavior of the materials when exposed to the etchant used to remove the substrate. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the thickness of the material film recited by instant claim 6 obvious in view of the disclosures of Tu and Nozawa.
Regarding Claim 16, Tu discloses a graphene pellicle for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. Tu discloses a method of making a pellicle having a graphene layer, which is depicted by the flowchart of Fig. 2 (paragraph 0018 and Fig. 2). The method comprises obtaining a substrate (paragraph 0019), depositing a first material layer over the substrate (paragraph 0020), and depositing a graphene layer over the first material layer (paragraph 0021). The first material layer, which is referred to as the graphene substrate, preferably is a nickel (Ni) layer (paragraph 0020). The nickel layer disclosed by Tu has a thickness ranging up to 500 nm (paragraph 0020). The graphene layer may be a multilayer graphene (paragraph 0021), thus making the graphene layer analogous to the graphite layer of the instant invention, as graphite is essentially a graphene multilayer (paragraph 0011). The graphene layer is deposited on the nickel layer using chemical vapor deposition (CVD), wherein the reaction chamber is set to a temperature between 600 and 1,000 °C (paragraph 0021). Tu discloses that the graphene layer is attached to a pellicle frame (paragraph 0027). Tu discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer can be designed according to the wavelength of the EUV radiation to be used (paragraph 0021). Tu further discloses that the pellicle assembly is suitable for use in EUV lithography processes (paragraph 0027).
However, Tu is silent in regards to the crystal plane of the nickel layer. Nozawa teaches a method for producing a graphene nano-ribbon. Nozawa teaches that the method includes the steps of forming a crystalline catalytic metal layer of copper or nickel on a (110) plane or a (112) plane of a MgAl2O4 single-crystal substrate or a MgO single-crystal substrate and growing graphene on the catalytic metal layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Nozawa, paragraph 0032). When the single-crystal substrate has a (110) plane, the crystal of the crystalline catalytic metal layer grows in such a manner that the surface of the catalytic metal layer is a (110) plane (Nozawa, paragraph 0062). See Table 1 of Nozawa (pages 7 and 8 of Nozawa’s disclosure), which shows that the catalytic metal layer has the same dominant plane as the substrate.
Tu and Nozawa are both silent in regards to the surface roughness of the catalyst layer. However, the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious a technique in which a nickel catalyst layer (specifically a (110) crystal plane nickel layer, per the teachings of Nozawa) is used to form a graphene membrane utilizing CVD conditions in accordance with the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the surface roughness of the nickel catalyst layer before and after the CVD process would be within the ranges recited by the instant application’s claims. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect these properties because the materials and processing steps are similar or identical to the materials and processing steps recited by the instant application. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the nickel catalyst layer recited by the instant application’s claims is unique compared to a similar nickel catalyst layer, and thus the surface roughness of the catalyst layer when performing the method obtained by combining the teachings of Tu and Nozawa would be expected to be similar or identical to that of the instant application. Refer to MPEP 2144.09, which states that chemical species having close structural similarity are expected to having similar properties. The surface roughness increase would be a result of the reaction occurring in the catalyst layer, per the instant application’s specification (see paragraph 0056 of the instant application’s specification). As the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would similarly induce a catalytic reaction in the nickel catalyst layer during the CVD process, one having ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect the surface roughness of the catalyst layer after the formation of the membrane layer to have increased due to the catalytic reaction in the catalyst layer. Similarly, Tu and Nozawa are silent in regards to the optical properties of the membrane. However, since the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious the method according to instant claim 1 and the combination of Tu and Nozawa utilizes similar or identical materials to produce the membrane, it would be expected that the membrane produced by the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would possess similar or identical optical properties to the optical properties recited by instant claim 1. Furthermore, Tu discloses that the membrane is utilized in EUV lithography (paragraph 0027), suggesting that the optical properties recited by instant claim 10 would be achieved by the membrane disclosed by Tu.
Tu and Nozawa are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of depositing graphene layers on nickel-coated substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to use nickel having a (110) plane as the dominant crystal plane, as taught by Nozawa, as the first material layer in the pellicle manufacturing method disclosed by Tu because when the catalytic metal layer has the (110) plane, a graphene film having an edge portion with an armchair type structure is produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0046), which means that specific electrical conductivity and magnetic properties can be obtained (Nozawa, paragraph 0007). Furthermore, utilizing the (110) plane of the catalytic metal layer allows for a graphene film with a controlled structure to be produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0099).
Regarding Claim 17, Tu discloses that the graphene layer (i.e. the membrane) may have the same shape and size as the substrate (paragraph 0028). Tu discloses that the substrate may be an eight inch wafer or a twelve inch wafer (paragraph 0028), which is larger than the dimensions recited by instant claim 17. However, Tu also discloses that portions of the graphene layer that extend beyond the pellicle frame may be trimmed (paragraph 0028), thus indicating that the membrane is fabricated to match the size of the pellicle assembly. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to fabricate the membrane to be of an appropriate dimension according to the size of the substrate. Further, per MPEP 2144.04 IV., a change in size or proportion does not sufficiently distinguish an invention over the prior art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the pellicle membrane obtained from the combination of Tu and Nozawa have a size of 50 mm in width and 50 mm in length.
Regarding Claim 18, Tu discloses that the graphene layer has a thickness in a range from 5 to 50 nm (paragraph 0021). In one embodiment, the graphene layer has a thickness of 20 nm (paragraph 0021). Tu discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer may be determined based on the wavelength of the EUV radiation to be used (paragraph 0021). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the graphene layer in the pellicle produced by the method obtained from the combination of Tu and Nozawa have a thickness between 10 and 30 nm.
Regarding Claim 19, Tu discloses that the substrate, which is a silicon substrate, may have a thickness on the order of microns to hundreds of microns (paragraph 0019). The disclosure of Tu suggests that the thickness of the substrate depends on the thickness of the target pellicle (paragraph 0019). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a substrate having a thickness of about 25 microns in the pellicle manufacturing method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa.
Regarding Claim 20, Tu discloses that the graphene layer is formed over the first material layer (Tu, paragraph 0021), wherein the first material layer is a nickel layer (Tu, paragraph 0020). Tu further discloses that the graphene layer is deposited using chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Thus, it is apparent that the first material layer disclosed by Tu is a catalytic layer that aids in the deposition of the graphene layer in the CVD process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the nickel layer as a catalytic layer for forming the graphite layer in the pellicle manufacturing method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0059535 A1 (hereby referred to as Tu) in view of US 2014/0080291 A1 (hereby referred to as Nozawa) and US 2018/0275508 A1 (hereby referred to as Kim).
Regarding Claims 11-12, Tu discloses a graphene pellicle for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography. Tu discloses a method of making a pellicle having a graphene layer, which is depicted by the flowchart of Fig. 2 (paragraph 0018 and Fig. 2). The method comprises obtaining a substrate (paragraph 0019), depositing a first material layer over the substrate (paragraph 0020), and depositing a graphene layer over the first material layer (paragraph 0021). The first material layer, which is referred to as the graphene substrate, preferably is a nickel (Ni) layer (paragraph 0020). The nickel layer disclosed by Tu has a thickness ranging up to 500 nm (paragraph 0020). The graphene layer may be a multilayer graphene (paragraph 0021), thus making the graphene layer analogous to the graphite layer of the instant invention, as graphite is essentially a graphene multilayer (paragraph 0011). The graphene layer is deposited on the nickel layer using chemical vapor deposition (CVD), wherein the reaction chamber is set to a temperature between 600 and 1,000 °C (paragraph 0021). Tu discloses that the graphene layer is attached to a pellicle frame (paragraph 0027). Tu discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer can be designed according to the wavelength of the EUV radiation to be used (paragraph 0021). Tu further discloses that the pellicle assembly is suitable for use in EUV lithography processes (paragraph 0027).
However, Tu is silent in regards to the crystal plane of the nickel layer. Nozawa teaches a method for producing a graphene nano-ribbon. Nozawa teaches that the method includes the steps of forming a crystalline catalytic metal layer of copper or nickel on a (110) plane or a (112) plane of a MgAl2O4 single-crystal substrate or a MgO single-crystal substrate and growing graphene on the catalytic metal layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Nozawa, paragraph 0032). When the single-crystal substrate has a (110) plane, the crystal of the crystalline catalytic metal layer grows in such a manner that the surface of the catalytic metal layer is a (110) plane (Nozawa, paragraph 0062). See Table 1 of Nozawa (pages 7 and 8 of Nozawa’s disclosure), which shows that the catalytic metal layer has the same dominant plane as the substrate.
Tu and Nozawa are both silent in regards to the surface roughness of the catalyst layer. However, the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious a technique in which a nickel catalyst layer (specifically a (110) crystal plane nickel layer, per the teachings of Nozawa) is used to form a graphene membrane utilizing CVD conditions in accordance with the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the surface roughness of the nickel catalyst layer before and after the CVD process would be within the ranges recited by the instant application’s claims. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect these properties because the materials and processing steps are similar or identical to the materials and processing steps recited by the instant application. The Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to suggest that the nickel catalyst layer recited by the instant application’s claims is unique compared to a similar nickel catalyst layer, and thus the surface roughness of the catalyst layer when performing the method obtained by combining the teachings of Tu and Nozawa would be expected to be similar or identical to that of the instant application. Refer to MPEP 2144.09, which states that chemical species having close structural similarity are expected to having similar properties. The surface roughness increase would be a result of the reaction occurring in the catalyst layer, per the instant application’s specification (see paragraph 0056 of the instant application’s specification). As the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would similarly induce a catalytic reaction in the nickel catalyst layer during the CVD process, one having ordinary skill in the art would similarly expect the surface roughness of the catalyst layer after the formation of the membrane layer to have increased due to the catalytic reaction in the catalyst layer. Similarly, Tu and Nozawa are silent in regards to the optical properties of the membrane. However, since the combination of Tu and Nozawa renders obvious the method according to instant claim 1 and the combination of Tu and Nozawa utilizes similar or identical materials to produce the membrane, it would be expected that the membrane produced by the method obtained by combining Tu and Nozawa would possess similar or identical optical properties to the optical properties recited by instant claim 1. Furthermore, Tu discloses that the membrane is utilized in EUV lithography (paragraph 0027), suggesting that the optical properties recited by instant claim 10 would be achieved by the membrane disclosed by Tu.
Tu and Nozawa are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of depositing graphene layers on nickel-coated substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the instant application to use nickel having a (110) plane as the dominant crystal plane, as taught by Nozawa, as the first material layer in the pellicle manufacturing method disclosed by Tu because when the catalytic metal layer has the (110) plane, a graphene film having an edge portion with an armchair type structure is produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0046), which means that specific electrical conductivity and magnetic properties can be obtained (Nozawa, paragraph 0007). Furthermore, utilizing the (110) plane of the catalytic metal layer allows for a graphene film with a controlled structure to be produced (Nozawa, paragraph 0099).
However, Tu and Nozawa fail to teach a metal foil as the substrate. Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a pellicle. The method taught by Kim includes forming a graphene or graphite pellicle membrane (Kim, paragraph 0040) which is formed on a substrate (Kim, paragraph 0052). The substrate may be a silicon substrate or a nickel substrate (Kim, paragraph 0053). In some embodiments, the substrate is a metal foil, such as nickel (Kim, paragraph 0073-0074). Following the formation of the pellicle membrane, the substrate may be removed using an etchant solution (Kim, paragraph 0073-0074).
Tu, Nozawa, and Kim are analogous art because each reference pertains to the deposition of carbon materials on nickel catalyst layers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to replace the silicon substrate disclosed by Tu with a nickel foil, as taught by Kim, because it is taught that nickel foil and silicon are functional equivalents as a substrate (Kim, paragraph 0053) and because a metal foil such as nickel can be removed from the pellicle membrane easily using an etchant solution, thus allowing the pellicle membrane to be used without the substrate (Kim, paragraph 0073-0074).
Regarding Claim 13, Tu discloses that the nickel layer may have a thickness of up to 500 nm (Tu, paragraph 0020).
However, Tu is silent in regards to the crystal size. Nozawa teaches that the catalytic metal layer is a single crystal (see Nozawa, Table 1 on pages 7 and 8 of Nozawa’s publication). Furthermore, Nozawa teaches that the thickness of catalytic metal layer controls the width of the graphene layer formed thereon (Nozawa, paragraph 0036). The thickness of the catalytic metal layer may be below 10 nm (Nozawa, paragraph 0067), suggesting that the metal crystal is inherently also below 10 nm, as the crystal cannot be larger than the layer itself.
Tu and Nozawa are analogous art because both references pertain to methods of depositing graphene on nickel-coated substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use a crystal size below 100 nm, as suggested by Nozawa, in the method obtained by combining the teachings of Tu, Nozawa, and Kim (as applied to claim 11 above) because when the catalyst layer is a single crystal having a size below 100 nm, graphene can be selectively grown on the surface of the catalytic metal layer (Nozawa, paragraph 0108-0110, see also Table 1) and the width of the graphene formed will be that of the thickness of the catalytic metal layer (Nozawa, paragraph 0100).
Regarding Claim 15, Tu discloses that the thickness of the graphene layer can be designed according to the wavelength of the EUV radiation to be used (paragraph 0021). Tu further discloses that the pellicle assembly is suitable for use in EUV lithography processes (paragraph 0027). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the membrane obtained by the combination of Tu, Nozawa, and Kim in EUV lithography apparatuses. Tu, Nozawa, and Kim are silent in regards to the optical properties of the membrane. However, since the combination of Tu, Nozawa, and Kim renders obvious the method according to instant claim 11 and the combination of Tu, Nozawa, and Kim utilizes similar or identical materials to produce the membrane, it would be expected that the membrane produced by the method obtained by combining Tu, Nozawa, and Kim would possess similar or identical optical properties to the optical properties recited by instant claim 15. Furthermore, Tu discloses that the membrane is utilized in EUV lithography (paragraph 0027), suggesting that the optical properties recited by instant claim 15 would be achieved by the membrane.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 27 specifies that the graphite layer of the pellicle membrane has a polycrystalline structure, and a polycrystal grain size of about 1 μm or less. The closest prior art for this claimed feature is WO 2019172418 A1 (hereby referred to as WO ‘418). WO ‘418 teaches a graphite thin film that can be used as a pellicle film for EUV exposure applications (WO ‘418, paragraph 0013 of the English translation). WO ‘418 further teaches that the average crystal grain size of the graphite thin film is 1.7 μm or more, and is preferably between 2.4 μm and 3.5 μm (WO ‘418, paragraph 0024 of the English translation). The prior art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the crystal grain size recited by claim 27 of the instant application.
Conclusion
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 JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734