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 .
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 restriction of the previous action is incorporated by reference here and made final. Claims 24-29 remain withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendment and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn in view of the amendments and arguments of the applicant. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
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.
Claim 1-3,6,7,10-13,15-17,19,21,22 and 30 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.
In claim 1, at line 7 and 9, after “1.0”, please insert - - μm - - (see table 1 at page 16 of the instant specification).
In claim 1 at line 6, please replace “and excludes aluminum” with - - which do not contain aluminum - - to make the claims clearer on which Ti alloys are embraced by the claims.
“a portion” is introduced twice (lines 6 and 7) in claim 1 and it is not clear if this is the same part of the inner surface as “a region” introduced at line 3.
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 1-3,6,7,13 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashima et al. WO 2020008977, in view of Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198
Murashima et al. WO 2020008977 (machine translation attached) teaches in example a carbon film applied to a nickel frame with dimensions of 45 x 45 mm x 0.2 mm (thickness) and a 10 mm wide sides by the formation of carbon-nickel boning between the frame and the pellicle ([0035] and table 1 on page 14). Example 2 use Ti as the frame material and example 3 uses an Ag-Ti alloy (table 1 and [0045].) The pellicle frame (B) is used to cover a photomask with a pellicle complex, which is a frame portion joined along the outer edge of the pellicle film. The pellicle frame (B) may have a vent in order to keep the pressure inside the exposure apparatus and inside the pellicle complex constant. Like the pellicle film (A), the shape of the pellicle frame (B) can be appropriately selected from a circle, an ellipse, a polygon, and the like, and a preferable shape is a square such as a square or a rectangle. The thickness of the pellicle frame is, for example, 0.1 to 10 mm [0019]. The pellicle frame (B) contains at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of Ni, Fe, Mo, Ti, Mn, Ta, W, and V. The element may be a pure metal (purity of, for example, 99% by mass or more), or an alloy containing at least one of the metal elements (the matrix of the alloy may be the metal element, or may be other than the metal element). And the total of the metal elements in the pellicle frame (B) is preferably 10% by mass or more. The pellicle frame (B) preferably contains at least one of Ni, Ti and Fe [0021]. The pellicle composite of the present invention is useful for protecting a photomask used in various lithography methods such as an EUV lithography method [0050].
Yanagawa JP 2009003111 (machine translation attached) in the examples A-E teaches Al-Ti alloys (See table 1)where the pellicle frame is 1400 mm x 1700 mm square with a thickness/height of 6 mm. The surface is treated to reduce reflection by sandblasting for 30 seconds to achieve a satin finish, washing with caustic soda (NaOH) and anodized to a black color [0068-0071]. The use of shot blasting or other roughening is disclosed and other blackening treatments to reduce reflectivity is disclosed [0059-0062]. The use of extremely short wavelengths for exposure is disclosed [0062]. Films of nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, fluorine-based polymer, etc. that transmit light used for exposure well are appropriately selected for the pellicle film [0063].
PNG
media_image1.png
472
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
\
Shirasaki 20110235016 teaches pellicle useful with transmission-type mask is used for example in transmission-type exposure equipment in which g line, i line, h line, KrF excimer laser light, ArF excimer laser light, etc. is used as exposure light. Furthermore, the reflection-type mask is used for example in EUV exposure equipment in which extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light with a wavelength of 13.5 nm is used as exposure light [0039-0040]. The type of pellicle film is not particularly limited and, for example, an amorphous fluorine polymer, etc. that has conventionally been used for an excimer laser is used. Examples of the amorphous fluorine polymer include Cytop (product name, manufactured by Asahi Glass Co. Ltd.) and Teflon (Registered Trademark) AF (product name, manufactured by DuPont). These polymers may be used by dissolving them in a solvent as necessary when preparing the pellicle film, and may be dissolved as appropriate in, for example, a fluorine-based solvent. On the other hand, in the case of a pellicle for EUV exposure, a silicon thin film is preferably used as a pellicle film [0033-0034]. With regard to the base material of the pellicle frame, a conventionally used aluminum alloy material, and preferably a JIS A7075, JIS A6061, JIS A5052 material, etc., is used, but when an aluminum alloy is used it is not particularly limited as long as the strength as a pellicle frame is ensured. The surface of the pellicle frame is preferably roughened by sandblasting or chemical abrasion prior to providing a polymer coating. In the present invention, a method for roughening the surface of the frame may employ a conventionally known method. It is preferable to employ a method for roughening the surface involving blasting the aluminum alloy material surface with stainless steel, carborundum, glass beads, etc., and further by chemically abrading with NaOH, etc [0034]. The pellicle is basically constituted of a pellicle frame and a pellicle film stretched over the frame. The pellicle film is formed from nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, a fluorine-based polymer, etc., which allows exposure light (g rays, i rays, 248 nm, 193 nm, etc.) to easily pass through. The pellicle film is adhered by coating the upper end part of the pellicle frame with a good solvent for the pellicle film and air-drying or by means of an adhesive such as an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, or a fluorine resin. Furthermore, in order to mount an exposure master plate, a lower end part of the pellicle frame is provided with a pressure-sensitive adhesion layer made of a polybutene resin, a polyvinyl acetate resin, an acrylic resin, a silicon resin, etc. and a reticle pressure-sensitive adhesive protecting liner for the purpose of protecting the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer [0006].
Nagata JP H11167198 (cited 4/20/2026 with machine translation attached) to the in embodiment 1 teaches an aluminum frame which was washed and then roughened with blasting using 90 micron glass beads for 10 minutes, followed by chemical polishing/treatment with NaOH, anodizing/dying/sealing to yields surface roughness of Ra 0.45 microns, Rt 4.5 microns and RMS roughness of 0.45 microns. This was cleaned, an adhesive applied to the upper face and a pellicle membrane attached and trimmed. It was possible to detect 1.0 micron polystyrene particles using inspection with a halogen lamp and a laser scattering measurement device and no erroneous detections were observed [0015]. Embodiment 2 teaches an aluminum frame which was washed and then roughened with blasting using 90 micron glass beads for 10 minutes, followed by anodizing/dying/sealing to yields surface roughness of Ra 0.5 microns, Rt 5.1 microns and RMS roughness of 0.5 microns. This was cleaned, an adhesive applied to the upper face and a pellicle membrane attached and trimmed. It was possible to detect 1.0 micron polystyrene particles using inspection with a halogen lamp and a laser scattering measurement device and no erroneous detections were observed [0017]. Comparative example 1, teaches an aluminum frame which was washed and then roughened with blasting using 90 micron glass beads for 10 minutes, followed by anodizing/dying/sealing to yields surface roughness of Ra 0.9 microns, Rt of 9.1 microns and RMS roughness of 1.2 microns. This was cleaned, an adhesive applied to the upper face and a pellicle membrane attached and trimmed. It was possible to detect 1.0 micron polystyrene particles using inspection with a halogen lamp and a laser scattering measurement device. The laser based apparatus could detect the polystyrene without erroneous detections, but the halogen light based detector could not. [0016]. Comparative example 2, teaches an aluminum frame which was washed and then roughened with blasting using 40 micron glass beads for 10 minutes, followed by anodizing/dying/sealing to yields surface roughness of Ra 0.2 microns, Rt of 3.0 microns and RMS roughness of 0.2 microns. This was cleaned, an adhesive applied to the upper face and a pellicle membrane attached and trimmed. It was possible to detect 1.0 micron polystyrene particles using inspection with a halogen lamp and a laser scattering measurement device. The Halogen lamp based apparatus could detect the polystyrene without erroneous detections, but the laser based detector could not. [0018]. However, the surface of the pellicle frame is generally roughened by sand blasting or chemical polishing to make it matt. Therefore, if the inner surface of the pellicle frame is coated with an adhesive resin, this resin enters the roughened surface and diffuses the inspection light. Many foreign substances seem to adhere to the inner surface of the pellicle frame, or foreign substances that should be detected are overlooked, resulting in a decrease in yield [0004]. That is, in the present invention, the surface roughness of the inner surface of the pellicle frame is Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm, Rt 4.0-8.5 μm, RMS 0.3-1.1 μm [0006,0010]. When the surface roughness of the inner surface of the pellicle frame 1 is smaller than the value specified in the present invention, if the inner surface of the pellicle frame is coated with an adhesive resin, the resin that has entered the unevenness of the inner surface fills the unevenness. Although the inspection light is not irregularly reflected and is not erroneously recognized as a foreign substance, since the reflected light on the inner surface of the pellicle frame increases, for example, when the foreign substance on the pellicle film 2 is inspected by a laser scattering type inspection apparatus, The laser light may be reflected on the inner surface of the pellicle frame and may be mistaken as if a foreign substance exists on the pellicle film. Meanwhile, pellicle frame When the surface roughness of the inner surface is larger than the value specified in the present invention, the amount of light scattered on the inner surface of the pellicle frame can be reduced. The resin that has entered the irregularities on the side surface irregularly reflects the inspection light, and it is erroneously recognized that many foreign substances are attached to the inner side surface, which makes not only the inspection difficult, but also the foreign substance actually attached. If the pellicle is used, the foreign matter falls off and adheres to the reticle surface when the pellicle is used, thereby lowering the yield [0010]. The method is not limited, and examples include sandblasting and chemical polishing. For example, when an aluminum material is used, a method is known in which blasting is performed using carborundum, glass beads, or the like, and the surface is roughened by chemical polishing using NaOH or the like [0008].
Murashima et al. WO 2020008977 does not exemplify the roughening of the inner surface of the Ti pellicle of example 2 to form a surface of Ra of 0.001 to 1.0 microns RMS of 0.001 to 1.0 microns and a kurtosis of 3.0 or less.
With respect to claims 1-3,6,7, 13 and 30, it would have been obvious to use shot blasting and chemical polishing with NaOH on the Ti frame in example 2 of Murashima et al. WO 2020008977 to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059] and reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
In the response of 5/4/2026, the applicant argues that the Murashima does not describe polishing. The examiner agrees, noting that the sanding is not of the interior frame surface. The declaration of Yu YANASE (currently part of OA appendix of 4/20/2026) in example 1 treats a Ti frame by sand blasting and chemical polishing using S-Clean S-22 (composition not of record). The comparison example with sand paper. The reflectance were both 44%, the Rku of example 1 was 2.8 (less than 3) while the sanding of the comparative example yielded a Rku of 3.4. The applicant should have submitted that as part of the amendment, but the examiner is attempting to have the declaration separated form the other portions of the agenda. This showing is sufficient to overcome the rejection based upon Murashima et al. WO 2020008977 alone.
The examiner notes that inventive examples 2-4 used sand/shot blasting followed by chemical polishing as does the rejection based upon Murashima et al. WO 2020008977, Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198. This is different from the shot blasting and polishing with a metal abrasive slurry in comparative example 1. It is not clear that this represents a comparison which is equal or preferable to a direct comparison with the prior art. The examiner points out that the references, specifically Nagata JP H11167198 describe treatment to achieve a roughness within a specific range which allows the reliable detection of particles on the interior surface of the frame, which is described as resulting in a lowered reflectivity (satin finish). There is clearly motivation to perform the roughening treatments. The examiner does note that the chemical treatment using S-22 may be different from the chemical polishing of the prior art, but noters that the claims are not limited to this.
Also the examiner notes that the claims require only a portion/region of the inner surface to have the and to be commensurate with the showing the majority of the inner surface would have to have the recited roughnesses. The benefit in particle detection argued does not apply to embodiments bounded by the claims where only a (small) portion of the inner surface has the reduced reflectivity.
Claims 1-3,6,7,13 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashima et al. WO 2020008977, in view of Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198, further in view of Nagata JP 2001249442.
Nagata JP 2001249442 (machine translation attached) in example teaches an Al frame which is blasted with 75 micron glass beads for 10 minutes, treated with NaOH for 10 seconds and then anodized/dyed and sealed to form an interior surface (Ra) of 0.4 microns. And allowed the detection of 0.2 micron foreign particles using a halogen lamp and had a reflectance of 0.20% [0023-0030]. In table 1, example 2 95 micron beads were used and the Ra was 0.9 and the reflectance was 0.16%. The reflectance of a light beam on the inner surface of the frame is set to 0.1. to 3% or less, preferably 0.3% or less and 0.05% or more. The light beam is inspection light applied at the time of inspection, and the wavelength of the light beam is 400 to 1,100 nm. The light reflectance is controlled by the roughness of the frame surface or the thickness and color tone of the oxide film layer on the frame surface. The roughness (Ra) of the frame surface preferably 0.3 to 2 μm [0011].
In addition to the basis above, the examiner cites Nagata JP 2001249442, who evidences the a roughness treatment similar to the of Nagata JP H11167198 results in reflectivity of 0.05 and 0.3% for an inspection wavelength within the 400-1000 nm range. This supports the position of the examiner that:
It would have been obvious to use shot blasting and chemical polishing with NaOH on the Ti frame in example 2 of Murashima et al. WO 2020008977 to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 and/or Nagata JP 2001249442 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059], reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and Nagata JP 2001249442 and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
Claims 1-3,6,7,10,13,15-17,19,21-22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502, in view of Yanagawa JP 2009003111 and Shirasaki 20110235016, Nagata JP H11167198 and Nagata JP 2001249442
Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 (machine translation attached) teaches that the material for the frame of the pellicle is not particularly limited, but aluminum or aluminum alloy (5000 series, 6000 series, 7000 series, etc.), stainless steel, titanium, silicon, and the like are preferable from the viewpoint of achieving both lightness and strength A material having resistance to EUV may be provided on the surface of the frame-shaped member 190. Specifically, a material containing one or more elements selected from Mo, Ru, and B can be given. Further, at this time, alcohol 190 such as isopropyl alcohol or water may adhere to a portion 190A of the frame-shaped member 190 that contacts the carbon nanotube free-standing film 125. In addition, the portion 190A may be provided with an adhesive 185. The material of the adhesive 185 is not particularly limited, but is preferably an organic resin material such as an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, a silicone resin, or a polyimide resin, and more preferably an organic resin material having resistance to EUV light. Preferable [0052]. The manufactured pellicle for EUV has a limit on the height of the pellicle, the total height 10h including the pellicle film 180 and the pellicle frame 195 is preferably 3.0 mm or less, more preferably 2.5 mm or less [0053]. When the carbon nanotube film 120 and the frame member 130 are connected, an adhesive 128 may be used. The adhesive 128 may be in the form of a film or may be used by curing a liquid material. For the adhesive 128, for example, an organic resin material such as an acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, a silicone resin, or a polyimide resin is used [0039]. The pellicle of this embodiment can be used as an exposure original by being mounted on the original. The pellicle of this embodiment is not only used as a protective member for suppressing foreign matter from adhering to the original in the EUV exposure apparatus, but also for protecting the original when the original is stored or transported. It may be used as a member. For example, if the pellicle is mounted on the original (exposure original), it can be stored as it is after being removed from the EUV exposure apparatus. As a method of mounting the pellicle on the original plate, there are a method of attaching with a bonding agent, an electrostatic adsorption method, a method of mechanically fixing, and the like [0055].
Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 does not teach the use of shot blasting or sand blasting of the pellicle frame.
With respect to claims 1-3,6,7,10,13 and 30, it would have been obvious to form a titanium frame with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm as taught at [0052-0053] of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 and to use shot blasting and chemical polishing to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 and/or Nagata JP 2001249442 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059], reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and Nagata JP 2001249442 and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
With respect to claims 1-3,6,7,10,13,15-17,19 and 30, it would have been obvious to form a titanium frame with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm as taught at [0052-0053] of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 and to use shot blasting and chemical polishing to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 and/or Nagata JP 2001249442 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 and attaching the carbon nanotube film using an pressure sensitive adhesive as taught in Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 at [0052] and Shirasaki 20110235016 at [0006] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful EUV pellicle. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059], reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and Nagata JP 2001249442 and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
With respect to claims 1-7,10,13,15-17,19 and 30, , it would have been obvious to form a titanium frame with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm as taught at [0052-0053] of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 and to use shot blasting and chemical polishing to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 and/or Nagata JP 2001249442 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 and attaching the silicon thin film or CYTOP thin film to the fame using an pressure sensitive adhesive as taught in Shirasaki 20110235016 at [0006, 0033-0034]. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059], reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and Nagata JP 2001249442 and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
With respect to claims 1-7,10,13,15-17,19,21-23 and 30, it would have been obvious to form a titanium frame with a thickness of less than 2.5 mm as taught at [0052-0053] of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 and to use shot blasting and chemical polishing to reduce the reflectivity of the pellicle frame as taught by Yanagawa JP 2009003111, Shirasaki 20110235016 and Nagata JP H11167198 and/or Nagata JP 2001249442 to within a range of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.0 μm using shotblasting and chemical polishing based upon the disclosure of these techniques yielding roughness of Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm in Nagata JP H11167198 which allow the detection of foreign particles , which is taught as useful with EUV pellicle frames in Shirasaki 20110235016 and attaching the carbon nanotube film using a pressure sensitive adhesive as taught in Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 at [0052] and Shirasaki 20110235016 at [0006] and attaching the finished pellicle to a mask/original as disclosed at Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502 at [0055] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful EUV pellicle protected mask. The position of the examiner is that the shot treatment for 10 minutes inherently results in reflectance of less than 20 %, noting the treated surfaces are described “Satin” in Yanagawa JP 2009003111 at [0059], reducing reflectance in Nagata JP H11167198 (abstract) and Nagata JP 2001249442 and inherently have a kurtosis of 3.0 based upon the treatment being this being the result observed in the instant application.
In addition to the response above, the examiner points out that the references, specifically Nagata JP H11167198 describe treatment to achieve a roughness within a specific range which allows the reliable detection of particles on the interior surface of the frame, which is described as resulting in a lowered reflectivity (satin finish).
Claims 1-7,10-13,15-17,19,21-23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502, in view of Yanagawa JP 2009003111 and Shirasaki 20110235016, Nagata JP H11167198 and Nagata JP 2001249442, further in view of Kohmura et al. WO 2017030109, Lock et al. 20080032006 and Sekihara JP 2012-220533.
Kohmura et al. WO 2017030109 (machine translation attached) teaches frames of aluminum, aluminum alloy, magnesium alloy, titanium, brass, iron, stainless steel and the like. The frame may be surface-treated by plasma treatment, roughening treatment, sand blast treatment, shot blast treatment or the like. According to these treatments, foreign matters and oil components attached to the surface are removed. Therefore, when such a surface treatment is applied to the frame, the adhesion between the frame and the film containing the polyimide resin is likely to increase. Further, when the surface of the frame is roughened by the above processing, the surface of the pellicle frame is easily matted, and foreign matter attached to the surface of the pellicle frame is easily detected. The frame preferably has an anodized film formed by anodizing treatment from the viewpoint of the chemical stability of the pellicle frame. The method of anodizing the frame and its conditions are not particularly limited as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired, and various conventionally known anodizing methods can be applied. For example, a known anodizing method using sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, nitric acid, tartaric acid or the like can be applied [0020-0022].
Lock et al. 20080032006 teaches anodization of titanium to lower the reflectance [0198].
Sekihara JP 2012-220533 (machine translation attached) teaches the use of reinforcement elements (12) which can be made of metal include brass, copper, titanium, and alloys thereof. Iron-based alloys such as carbon steel and piano wire, and particularly stainless steel is preferable from the viewpoint of corrosion resistance. The surface of the metal linear reinforcing body 12 is preferably blackened. This is to minimize the influence on the foreign object inspection and prevent stray light. Examples of the blackening treatment include black chrome plating, black nickel plating, galvanizing black chromate treatment, radiant treatment, and parkerizing. Further, as the matting treatment, it is also preferable that the surface is subjected to a satin treatment by means such as pickling prior to the plating treatment [0023].
The combination of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502, Yanagawa JP 2009003111 and Shirasaki 20110235016 does not teach techniques for blackening/anodization of Ti surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the treatment of the Ti frames rendered obvious by the combination of Ohkubo et al. JP 2019168502, Yanagawa JP 2009003111 and Shirasaki 20110235016, Nagata JP H11167198 and Nagata JP 2001249442 which are practiced to results in an Ra 0.3 to 0.9 μm and RMS 0.3-1.1 μm by anodizing the Ti using known techniques such as those taught by Kohmura et al. WO 2017030109, Lock et al. 20080032006 and Sekihara JP 2012-220533 to further reduce the reflectivity
The examiner points out that the references, Kohmura et al. WO 2017030109, Nagata JP H11167198 and Nagata JP 2001249442 describe treatment to achieve a roughness to allow the reliable detection of particles on the interior surface of the frame, which is described as resulting in a lowered reflectivity (satin finish).
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 1-3,6,7,10-13,15-17,19,21-22 and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 17/793461 (20230117335). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pellicle films where the frame surfaces were sand blasted (claim 13) and anodized/blackened (claim 11) inherently would yield a pellicle meeting the claims limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The applicant has declined to address this rejection at this time. It is maintained.
Claims 1-7,10,13,15-17,19,21-22 and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 18/705331 (20250224668). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pellicle films where the frame surfaces were physically or chemically polished (claim 13) inherently would yield a pellicle meeting the claims limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights