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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and entered. Rejection of the previous action not appearing below are withdrawn. Responses to the arguments are presented below. The applicant has asked for rejoinder. As the claims are not allowable fort the reasons articulated below, the request for rejoinder is premature, the restriction is maintained and claims 21-24 and 26-28 remain withdrawn for prosecution.
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 1-9,11,12,14 and 19 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.
It is not clear that the applicant has possession of the invention where the non-doping techniques are used. The specification as filed states :
“[0099] Correspondingly, multiple input, multiple output modelling methods may be used. For example, using an example of a pellicle membrane comprising MoSiN (nitrogen doped MoSi) crystals in a matrix, the temperature sensitivity and pressure sensitivity (e.g. gas pressure) is predicted for a set of input properties: doping methods (e.g. co-sputtering, diffusion from sacrificial layers, implantation) and dopant concentrations (e.g. 0% to 5%). The output is a multi-dimensional matrix of values, from which an optimal set of input and output values or acceptable range of input and output values may be identified.” And
“[0042] The method of the present invention allows for better control of the composition of a pellicle membrane. By co-sputtering of the two materials and by using different powers applied to the sputtering targets, it is possible to carefully adjust the ultimate ratio of the matrix material to the inclusion material in the ultimate pellicle membrane. In this way, the optimal balance between transmissivity and emissivity of the pellicle membrane can be achieved.”
The specification does not describe non-doping techniques for forming the pellicle, noting that the specification specifically describes co-sputtering, diffusion and implantation techniques as examples of doping techniques.
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.
Claims 1-9,11,12,14 and 19 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.
It is not clear what the scope of the claims are as it is not clear what artifacts of the formation process would be found in the pellicle membrane which are clearly attributable specifically to either doping or non-doping techniques, particularly in view of the expansive definition of doping found in the specification at [0099], which includes co-sputtering, diffusion and ion implantation.
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.
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 1-6,8,11,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Zuev et al., “Optical, Mechanical, and thermal properties of free-standing MoSi2Nx and ZrSi2Ny nanocomposite films” , Technical Phys. Vol. 64(11) pp 1590-1595 (11/2019), originally in Russian in Zhurnal Teknicheskoi Fiziki 2019 Vol. 89(11) pp 1680-1685.
Zuev et al., “Optical, Mechanical, and thermal properties of free-standing MoSi2Nx and ZrSi2Ny nanocomposite films” , Technical Phys. Vol. 64(11) pp 1590-1595 (11/2019), originally in Russian in Zhurnal Teknicheskoi Fiziki 2019 Vol. 89(11) pp 1680-1685 describes free-standing films which are useful as absorption filters and/or protective films to protect the surface of photomasks from dust and other contaminants. These films are transparent in the EUV and soft X-ray regions (page 1590,left column). The nitriding of the MoSi2 and ZrSi2 was used to slow down the crystallization of these films (page 1591/right column). Table 1 evidences the optical characteristics of 140nm MoSi2N0.9, MoSi2N0.35, and MoSi2N0.27 films (page 1592/left column). ZrSi2N1.3 is disclosed on page 1592/right column. Table 2 provides data regarding single layer (140 nm thick) and ZrSiN/MoSiN/ZrSiN or MoSiN/ZrSiN/MoSiN trilayer films (page 1592). Tables 3 describes pressure measurement of pellicle films (page 1593)
The specifically allow the inclusions to be chemically distinct and/or have different morphologies. Specifically the inclusions can be crystals or amorphous. There is no limitation on their size or distribution (see specification at [00015-00016,00019]).
In the Zuev reference, the amorphous nitrided areas (SiN ) are considered to be the inclusions within the crystalline ZrSi and MoSi matrix. Alternatively, the crystalline ZrSi or MoSi areas are considered the inclusions, with the nitride areas (SiN) being amorphous (see page 1591/right column). With respect to claims 5 and 6, the MoSiN and ZrSiN matrices “comprise” silicon and silicon nitride.
The examiner notes that the films of Zuev et al. are formed by sputtering ZrSi2 or MoSi2 in the presence of nitrogen (reactive sputtering), which is similar to the technique used in example 1 of the instant application (see specification at [00087].
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference in crystallinity is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix” . The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the magnetron sputtering technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques, particularly after the joule heating which anneals the pellicle (see figure 1 and associated text) and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-6,8,11,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Van Zwol et al. WO 2019086643.
Van Zwol et al. WO 2019086643 describes non-stoichiometric nitridation in MoSiN and ZrSiN films used for pellicles [00041]. The nitrogen content can be 1-25 At% [00044-00045]. The pellicle may have a capping layer [00045]. The nitridation can also be achieved by reactive sputtering in the presence of nitrogen gas.[00050-00051]. The metal M can be Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, and Be [00052]. A MoSiNx pellicle is used in an exposure process [000127]].
The amorphous nitrided areas (SiN ) are considered to be the inclusions within the crystalline ZrSi and MoSi matrix. Alternatively, the crystalline ZrSi or MoSi areas are considered the inclusions, with the nitride areas (SiN) being amorphous (see page 1591/right column). With respect to claims 5 and 6, the MoSiN and ZrSiN matrices “comprise” silicon and silicon nitride.
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference in crystallinity is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the magnetron sputtering technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques, particularly after heating for 20 hours at 580 degrees C which anneals the pellicle [000127] and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques. The rejection stands.
Claims 1-5,7-9,11,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nikipelov et al. WO 2016/001351.
Nikipelov et al. WO 2016/001351 describes a 60nm thick polysilicon pellicle is obtained with having N-type doping of an EUV pellicle material with at least about (2 to3) xl0.sup.20n/cm.sup.3 donor atoms. The higher the pellicle temperature, the higher the doping concentration should be due to the shift of Planck spectrum at higher temperatures. The optimal doping in case of P-type doping of an EUV pellicle material was found to be at least 4 x10 20 n/cm 3 acceptor atoms. P-type doping results in slightly (about 10%) higher IR emissivity than N-type doping. Compared with a 60 nm thick polysilicon pellicle, a thinner pellicle would have a higher optimal doping concentration (e.g. 20 nm thick pellicle has optimal doping around le.sup.21) and a thicker pellicle would have a lower optimal doping concentration (200 nm thick Si pellicle has optimal doping around le.sup.20). Generally, for an EUV pellicle with a thickness between 10 and 250 nm the optimal dopant concentration ranges from 5xl0.sup.19 to lxlO.sup.21 n/cm.sup.3 atoms [0024]. Optionally, the doping can be graded, such that doping increases towards the center. In such arrangements, the gradient may occur over the full radius of the EUV membrane, or layer thereof (i.e. doping starts at the membrane edge and increases towards the center). Alternatively doping may only begin at the edge of the central region 510 and increase towards the center, with the peripheral region 520 having no doping. Or the doping grading may occur for only an intermediate section between a peripheral region having no doping and a central region having high doping [0071]. Figure 9 illustrates the emissivity of doped EUV polysilicon pellicle of 60 nm thickness (left side graph in figure 9) and the integrated emissivity versus temperature in K for intrinsic polysilicon pellicle vs doped pellicles (right side graph in figure 9). To increase the emissivity above 0.1 a 60 nm polysilicon pellicle was doped with at least 5xl0.sup.19 cm.sup."3 [0081].
PNG
media_image1.png
330
265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In all the above embodiments, doping materials may be limited to those transparent for EUV, and which have the smallest mismatch with Si lattice (e.g. carbon, boron and nitrogen) for the sake of strength and reliability. In other embodiments, dopants which are not transparent for 13.5 nm but are transparent to other EUV/BUV wavelengths can be used, where the wavelength is appropriate for the lithographic system. These dopant materials may include: S, Te, As, O, Al, Sn, Sb, In, Ga, Br, CI, I, C, B, N [0082]. UV radiation (i.e. an EUV pellicle) having a core layer material selected from (poly-)Si, Si3N4, SiC, ZrN, ZrB.sub.2, ZrC, MoB2, MoC, RuB.sub.2, LaB.sub.2, LaC, TiB.sub.2, TiC, (poly-)crystalline Yttrium, (poly-)crystalline Zr, Be, C, B and B.sub.4C and composites or combinations of multilayers therefrom. Semi-metals such as ZrB.sub.2, ZrC may reduce the electrostatic charging of the EUV pellicle. Silicon nitride Si3N4 (also referred to SiNx) refers herein to amorphous silicon nitride and incorporates both stoichiometric (3:4 ratio, x=1.33) and non- stoichiometric SiNx alloys (0 < x < 1.6) [0087].
In another aspect of the invention there is provided a membrane transmissive to EUV radiation (EUV pellicle) having a (core) material selected from (poly-)Si, Si3N4, SiC, ZrN, ZrB.sub.2, ZrC, MoB2, MoC, RuB.sub.2, LaB.sub.2, LaC, TiB.sub.2, TiC, (poly-)crystalline Yttrium, (poly-)crystalline Zr, Be, C, B and B.sub.4C and composites or combinations of multilayers therefrom. Semi-metals such as ZrB.sub.2 or ZrC may reduce the electrostatic charging of the EUV pellicle. The EUV pellicle has preferably a thickness of 60nm or less to allow sufficient EUV transmission [0026].
The reference exemplifies a 60 nm thick doped polysilicon pellicle. The 60 nm is held to be within the about “10 nm to about 50 nm range” recited in claim 9.
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1-3,5,7-9,11,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Nam et al. JP 2018-151622.
Nam et al. JP 2018-151622 (machine translation attached) teaches a pellicle layer 106 is formed of a silicon layer having properties of a single crystal, an amorphous state, and a polycrystalline state. The pellicle layer 106 is formed of boron (B), phosphorus (P), arsenic (As), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), and molybdenum (Mo) to improve mechanical and thermal properties. ) Of one or more substances. These substances are impregnated into the pellicle layer 106 by doping, and the doping concentration is preferably 1010 ions / cm3 or more during the doping process. The pellicle layer 106 has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm, and preferably has a thickness of 20 nm to 70 nm. As described above in the description of the prior art, it is preferable that the pellicle layer 106 basically has a thickness of 100 nm or less for excellent transmission of extreme ultraviolet exposure light. The transmittance is high. However, in order for the pellicle layer 106 to have a minimum mechanical strength for maintaining its shape, it is preferable that the pellicle layer 106 has a thickness of at least 10 nm as described above. Further, in the case of a photomask using EUV, it is usually used in a manner that reflects the exposure light without transmitting it. Therefore, the exposure light passes through the pellicle layer 106 twice at the time of incidence and reflection. In order to reduce the exposure light absorption to 20% or less, the light transmittance of the pellicle layer 106 is preferably 90% or more. However, since it is difficult to maintain the light transmittance of the pellicle layer 106 at 90% or more when the thickness is 100 nm or more, the thickness of the pellicle layer 106 is preferably 100 nm or less. FIG. 1B is a modification of FIG. 1A, and the extreme ultraviolet lithography pellicle 100 of this modification includes a frame layer 130, a pellicle layer 106, and a heat release layer 112. Here, the frame layer 130 and the pellicle layer 106 are the same as in FIG. 1A described above, and the heat release layer 112 is formed on the top, bottom, or both above and below the pellicle layer 106. The heat release layer 112 is formed of one or more layers [0044-0046]. The US equivalent is us-20180259845.
The reference clearly describes silicon in the form of single crystal, polycrystalline and amorphous with thicknesses of 10-100 nm doped with boron (B), phosphorus (P), arsenic (As), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), and molybdenum (Mo).
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1,9,11,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Shin et al. 20180149966.
Shin et al. 20180149966 when referring to FIG. 1, the pellicle P10 may include a pellicle membrane M10. The pellicle membrane M10 may include nanocrystalline graphene having defects. In other words, a constituent material (or a main constituent material) of the pellicle membrane M10 may be nanocrystalline graphene. The nanocrystalline graphene may include a plurality of nanoscale crystal grains. The crystal grains may include a “two-dimensional (2D) carbon structure” having an aromatic ring structure. A size (length/diameter) of each of the crystal grains may be several hundreds of nm or less (e.g., about 300 nm or less), for example, greater than 0 nm and about 100 nm or less. The 2D carbon structure included in the crystal grains may have a layered structure in which carbon atoms are two-dimensionally arranged. Defects included in the nanocrystalline graphene may include at least one selected from an sp3 carbon (C) atom, an oxygen (O) atom, a nitrogen (N) atom, and a carbon vacancy [0088]. IG. 3A illustrates a case where some carbon atoms forming an aromatic ring structure become sp3 carbons when double bonds thereof are broken, and hydroxy groups (OH) are bonded to the sp3 carbons. Carbon atoms maintaining double bonds in the aromatic ring structure may be referred to as sp2 carbons. Since all carbon atoms constituting general graphene may be sp2 carbons, the sp3 carbons may be regarded as defects of graphene. Also, a functional group (or a substituent) such as the hydroxy group (OH) bonded to the sp3 carbon may be regarded as defects [0094]. The pellicle P100 may include a pellicle membrane M100 spaced apart from the mask pattern MP10. The pellicle membrane M100 may have the same structure as those of the pellicle membranes M10 to M13 described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 5 and 9 to 21. Therefore, the pellicle membrane M100 may include nanocrystalline graphene having defects. Therefore, the pellicle membrane M100 may further include a protective layer on at least one surface of the nanocrystalline graphene. The pellicle membrane M100 may have a first horizontal length of several tens of mm to several hundreds of mm and a second horizontal length (width) of several tens of mm to several hundreds of mm. The pellicle membrane M100 may have a thickness of about 150 nm or less, or about 100 nm or less. For example, the pellicle membrane M100 may have a thickness of about 50 nm or less [0158].
PNG
media_image2.png
289
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that there are no non-doping inclusion formed by Shin et al. 20180149966. The examiner points out the disclosure of Defects included in the nanocrystalline graphene may include at least one selected from an sp3 carbon (C) atom, an oxygen (O) atom, a nitrogen (N) atom, and a carbon vacancy which are not carbon (matrix) [0088] and there are no artifacts which are attributable to the use of doping in the formation of the these defects, nor are the terms “doping”, “doped” or “dopant” used in the reference. The arguments are without merit.
Claims 1-3,5,7-9,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Chen et al. 20170351170.
Chen et al. 20170351170 teaches that the pellicle membrane 306 includes a transparent layer 402 of one or more materials including silicon, such as polycrystalline silicon (poly-Si), amorphous silicon (a-Si), doped silicon (such as phosphorous doped silicon—SiP) or a silicon-based compound. Alternatively, the transparent layer 402 includes polymer, grapheme or other suitable material. The transparent layer 402 has a thickness with enough mechanical strength but not degrading the transparency of the membrane. In some examples, the transparent layer 402 has a thickness ranging between 30 nm and 50 nm [0033].
PNG
media_image3.png
419
296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The specific silicon which is doped is not recited, but claims 7 recites all possible morphologies.
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1-3,5,7-9,11,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Bellman 20050042524.
Bellman 20050042524 teaches a process of the present invention for making a photomask pellicle involves the separation of the deposited pellicle layer 105 from the wafer substrate 101. Heat treatment is used in this step to effect the separation. Methods of heat treatment useable for the present invention include laser heating, rapid thermal annealing (RTA) and furnace annealing. Laser heating is a preferred means of the heat treatment. For example, 315 nm XeCl laser may be advantageously employed. Without intending to be bound by any particular theory, it is believed that the laser heating can lead to the release of H2 from the hydrogenated amorphous silicon layer, causing defects to form inside the silicon layer which lead to the splitting of the pellicle layer and a portion of the silicon layer from the surface of the substrate 101. Where the amorphous silicon layer is fluorine doped, or where a separate fluorine doped layer is deposited adjacent to the silicon layer, as described supra, such laser heating can cause the reactions such as between H and F in the same or adjacent layers, forming gases that causes defects in the intermediate layer, which enables the splitting of the pellicle layer and a portion of the intermediate layer from the substrate 101. The pellicle fabrication process of the present invention takes advantage of the splitting-capable property upon heating of the intermediate layer. By proper heat treatment, the deposited pellicle layer splits from the surface of the substrate with a portion of the intermediate layer. As a result, a pellicle layer 105 bonded to a mounting frame 107 on its second surface is generated. The pellicle layer thus separated from the substrate has a thin layer on its first surface split from the intermediate layer (103 in FIG. 1; 103 and 104 in FIG. 2). In this way, the process of the present invention avoids mounting the pellicle frame to a discrete thin film directly and the possibility of fracture associated with such direct mounting. The substrate 101 may be recycled for making the next pellicle upon separation. Surface finishing by chemical mechanical polishing may be used before it is being used again.
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference in the defects formed by the release of the hydrogen are sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that the laser exposure resulting in defects is not doping, even within the expensive definition in the specification at [0099].There are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1,3,5,8,11,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Shirasaki 6368683.
Shirasaki 6368683 teaches a pellicle comprising silicon oxide doped with fluorine as the material of the pellicle membrane can be used for laser lights of a short wavelength, 160 nm or less, for which conventional silicon oxide membranes cannot be used (col 3/lines 4-9)
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1,3,5,6,8,11,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Lee et al. KR 20190118325.
Lee et al. KR 20190118325 (machine translation attached) teaches the process for forming a pellicle thin film (membrane), including a silicon substrate (20), a buffer film (30) and a silicon thin film (40), which is implanted with nitrogen atoms, the substrate is then etched to form an opening in the middle. The nitridation can also performed on a SiC layer formed on the silicon layer (40). exposed through the separation space 15 and then separating the silicon thin film 40 from the lower structure may be further performed. By injecting the etchant into the silicon substrate 20 exposed through the space 15, at least the region of the silicon substrate 20 in which the support frame 10 is not present is removed and the pellicle thin film 50 therefrom. It can be easily separated from this substructure. The separated pellicle thin film 50 may be provided in the EUV device while mounted on a frame or the like [0025-0035].
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1,3,5,7,8,11,,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Nikipelov et al. 20170205704.
Nikipelov et al. 20170205704 teaches doping of an EUV pellicle material with impurities in order to increased emissivity may be done for any semiconductor. Doping may be done using B or P, which are both transparent materials in the EUV regime. If silicon is doped with B or P also the EUV loss is negligible. The materials is polysilicon [0102].
The type of silicon is not specified, but more include one of amorphous, monocrystalline, polycrystalline, microcrystalline or a combination of these (there are not any other possible morphologies)
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1-6, 8,11,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being fully anticipated by Grunder et al. 20150292111.
Grunder et al. 20150292111 describes WSiN layers which can be grown to thicknesses of 1 mm and then separated at free-standing films [0002].
The amorphous nitrided areas (SiN ) are considered to be the inclusions within the crystalline WSi matrix. Alternatively, the crystalline WSi areas are considered the inclusions, with the nitride areas (SiN) being amorphous (see page 1591/right column). With respect to claims 5 and 6, the MoSiN and ZrSiN matrices “comprise” silicon and silicon nitride.
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference in crystallinity and the SiN composition in the WSi matrix is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix” .The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1-6,8,9,11,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikipelov et al. WO 2016/001351.
Nikipelov et al. WO 2016/001351 only exemplifies doping polysilicon pellicle films.
It would have been obvious to modify the pellicle using the doped polysilicon by replacing the polysilicon with other known cores, such as Si3N4, SiC, ZrN, ZrB.sub.2, ZrC, MoB2, MoC, RuB.sub.2, LaB.sub.2, LaC, TiB.sub.2, TiC, (poly-)crystalline Yttrium, (poly-)crystalline Zr, Be, C, B and B.sub.4C and composites of these with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle based upon the equivalence established at [0087].
In the response of 3/6/2026, the applicant argues that as a doping techniques is used, the claims do not meet the non-doping limitation. The examiner holds that the difference from the added/doped material is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix”. The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques.
Claims 1-6,8,12,14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Mitsui 20050250017, as evidenced by Volk et al. 7541115 and Shirasaki 20010004508.
Mitsui 20050250017 teaches a process for forming MoSiN layers as part of a photomask where molybdenum silicide powders (Chemical Formula MoSi2) were adjusted by using molybdenum powders and silicon powders as raw materials so that a composition ratio of the target became Mo:Si=8:92 (mol %). Next, the molybdenum silicide powders thus obtained were mixed with silicon powders, which was then subjected to press sintering under appropriate pressure and heating temperature by the HP method, thus manufacturing three kinds of molybdenum silicide targets different in hardness, such as a molybdenum silicide target of 870 HV in Vickers' hardness (Sample 1), a molybdenum silicide target of 980 HV in Vickers' hardness (Sample 2), and a molybdenum silicide target of 1100HV in Vickers' hardness (Sample 3). Note that the hardness of the target was measured by using a Vickers' hardness tester and by a Vickers' hardness test method regulated by JIS Z 2244 and ISO 6507, which is an international standard corresponding to JIS Z 2244, setting the test load to be 9.807N. Five points on the surface of the polished target was measured and the averaged value of the five points was obtained as a measured value. The aforementioned target and a quartz glass substrate as the transparent substrate was disposed in the aforementioned DC magnetron sputtering device. Then, an atmosphere in the device was set as a mixed gas atmosphere of argon (Ar) and nitrogen (N2) (Ar:N2=10%:90%, pressure:0.3 Pa), and by reactive sputtering, an MoSiN thin film having a film thickness of approximately 672 angstrom was formed on the transparent substrate as the light semi-transmitting film [0100-0101].
Volk et al. 7541115 establishes that quartz pellicles are known in the photolithographic arts (1/64-47).
Shirasaki 20010004508 describes a pellicle having a pellicle thick plate 7 made of glass as a pellicle membrane is placed on a mask 5, and load is applied to an upper surface of a frame 3 to adhere the pellicle to the mask 5.
The position of the examiner is that the quartz substrate with a thickness of 672 angstroms or less of MoSiN layer upon inherently can act as a pellicle aand evidenced the use of glass/quartz substrates as pellicles in the (photo)lithographic arts in the teachings of Volk et al. 7541115 and Shirasaki 20010004508.
The applicant did not address this rejection in the response of 3/6/2026. The examiner holds that the difference in crystallinity is sufficient to be “inclusions of materials which are different form the solid matrix” . The position of the examiner is that irrespective of the magnetron sputtering technique used to form the layer, there are no artifacts attributable to doping techniques, particularly after the joule heating which anneals the pellicle (see figure 1 and associated text) and the pellicle of the reference is equivalent to one produced using non-doping techniques. The rejection stands.
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.
Claims 1-9,11,12,14,19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11686997. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claims 2 and 6 clears recites a pellicle within the scope of the coverage sought in the instant claims.
11686997
Claim 2, A pellicle according to Claim 1, wherein the nitridated metal silicide has the formula Mx(Si)yNz, wherein x≤y≤2x, and 0<z≤x, or wherein the nitridated silicon has the formula SiNa, wherein 0.01≤a≤1, desirably wherein a≤0.5, more desirably wherein a≤0.1.
Claim 6 recites A pellicle according to any of Clauses 1 to 5, wherein metal M is selected from the group comprising Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, and Be
With respect to claims 1-9,11,12,14 and 19, the (Zr,Mo,Ru)SiN pellicles bounded by the cited claims of U.S. Patent No.11686997 embrace the claims rejected under this heading, noting that claims 6 of the instant specification recite silicon nitride (claim 6) and MoSi, ZrSi, RuSi, WSi and combinations thereof in claim 4.
Claims 1-9,11,12,14,19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11971654. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claims 2 and 4 clears recites a pellicle within the scope of the coverage sought in the instant claims..
1. A spectral filter membrane for a lithographic apparatus, the spectral filter membrane comprising nitridated metal silicide.
2. The spectral filter membrane according to claim 1, wherein the nitridated metal silicide has the formula M.sub.x(Si).sub.yN.sub.z, wherein each of x, y and z is greater than zero.
4. The spectral filter membrane according to claim 1, wherein the metal M is selected from: Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, or Be.
With respect to claims 1-9,11,12,14 and 19, the (Zr,Mo,Ru)SiN pellicles bounded by the cited claims of U.S. Patent No. 11971654 embrace the claims rejected under this heading, noting that claims 6 of the instant specification recite silicon nitride (claim 6) and MoSi, ZrSi, RuSi, WSi and combinations thereof in claim 4.
Claims 1-9,11,12,14,19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11287737. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claims 2 and 3 clears recites a pellicle within the scope of the coverage sought in the instant claims..
2. The pellicle according to claim 1, wherein the nitridated metal silicide has the formula M.sub.x(Si).sub.yN.sub.z, wherein x≤y≤2x, and 0<z≤x.
3. The pellicle according to claim 1, wherein the metal is selected from: Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, or Be.
With respect to claims 1-9,11,12,14 and 19, the (Zr,Mo,Ru)SiN pellicles bounded by the cited claims of U.S. Patent No. 11287737 embrace the claims rejected under this heading, noting that claims 6 of the instant specification recite silicon nitride (claim 6) and MoSi, ZrSi, RuSi, WSi and combinations thereof in claim 4.
Claims 1-9,11,12,14,19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-29 of copending Application No. 18617149 (20240302734). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the combination of claims 11 and 33 or 24 and 13 clears recites a pellicle within the scope of the coverage sought in the instant claims..
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The pellicle according to claim 10, wherein the nitridated metal silicide has the formula M.sub.x(Si).sub.yN.sub.z, wherein each of x, y and z is greater than zero.
13. The pellicle according to claim 10, wherein M is selected from: Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, or Be.
24, The spectral filter membrane according to claim 23, wherein the nitridated metal silicide has the formula M.sub.x(Si).sub.yN.sub.z, wherein each of x, y and z is greater than zero.
With respect to claims 1-9,11,12,14 and 19, the (Zr,Mo,Ru)SiN pellicles bounded by the cited claims of copending Application No. 18617149 (20240302734) embrace the claims rejected under this heading, noting that claims 6 of the instant specification recite silicon nitride (claim 6) and MoSi, ZrSi, RuSi, WSi and combinations thereof in claim 4.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shavikof et al. WO 2020207774 teaches a the pellicle, for example oxide in grain boundaries, or phases of layers consisting of multiple phases (i.e. MoSiN) [0083].
Lee et al. KR 20190113460 (machine translation attached) teaches the core layer 130 of the pellicle is provided on the first protective layer 110, zirconium (Zr), silicon nitride (SiN .sub.x , 1≤x <2), silicon carbide (SiC) , Graphite, and molybdenum silicide (MoSi .sub.x , 1 ≦ .sub.x ≦ 2) [0072].
Kim et al. WO 2018226004 (machine translation attached) teaches that the pellicle film may include at least one layer selected from a silicon carbide (SiC) thin film layer, a silicon (Si) thin film layer, a carbon (C) thin film layer, a boron carbide (B .sub.4 C) thin film layer, and a zircon (ZrSiO .sub.4 ) thin film layer. [54]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm 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, Mark F Huff can be reached on 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 March 27, 2026