DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 34, 36-37, 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. Claim 34, recites “a second protective layer that comprises zirconium dioxide” and is not taught by the instant specification. The instant specification teaches that the second protective layer comprises molybdenum-doped silicon oxide. Correction is required.
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 34, 36-37, 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.
Amended claim 34 recites “a second protective layer”. It is not clear if there is a first protective layer or not, and if so, “a first protective layer” is not recited. It is not clear why the protective layer is referred to as “second protective layer” since a first protective layer is not recited or claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 16-20, 23-26, 30-34, 36-37, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0146332 (hereinafter referred to as Van Zwol).
Van Zwol, in [0003], [0006], discloses a lithographic process using EUV to manufacture integrated circuits (semiconductor devices), the process includes positioning the resist-coated wafer (photoresist coated semiconductor wafer) on a wafer table (substrate table, claimed wafer stage) ([0051]), positioning a patterning device (reticle, or mask) on a mask table (support structure) ([0050]), wherein the mask is a reflective mask (see figure 8) that has an absorber pattern (light absorbing layer defining a pattern) to be transferred to the substrate ([0051], [0055]). Van Zwol, in [0064], and [0080], discloses that the pellicle membrane (EUV membrane) is positioned over the reticle via a pellicle frame wherein the pellicle frame is attached to the reticle via securing means such that the EUV membrane (pellicle) is positioned at some distance from the reticle surface. Van Zwol, in figure 2, and in [0066], [0068], [0069], discloses that the EUV radiation from the light source is directed via the pellicle onto the patterning device (reticle or mask, claimed illuminating the reticle), and patterned beam reflected from the reticle is imaged onto the substrate carried by the wafer stage or substrate table (via projection system, PS, see figure 2) . Van Zwol, in the abstract, [0018]-[0019], discloses that the EUV membrane i.e., EUV pellicle that is transmissive to EUV (the claimed pellicle) comprises multilayer stack of core layers, cap layers, and cover layers and that the cap layers can be positioned over the core layer or in between core and cover layer or between cover and other cap layers wherein the different cap layers and cover layers can have different functionality and discloses that at least one of the cap layer can be for IR absorbing (i.e., prevent the transmission of the IR radiation to the reticle, claimed IR active layer), and another one of the layers of the stack (cover or cap layer) can suppress DUV radiation (claimed DUV active layer filtering out DUV wavelengths) wherein the EUV membrane includes one or more protective layers ([0009]), and the cap layers (that include the IR active layer and DUV active layer) can be sandwiched by core layers and/or further cap or cover layers (protective) and that the EUV membrane can include a multilayer stack and Van Zwol, in [0111], discloses that the protective layer comprises ZrO2 ([0111]). Van Zwol, in [0142], discloses that protective cap layer can be ZrO2, and in [0009], Van Zwol, discloses that the protective cap layer can be on at least one surface of the EUV transmissive membrane (pellicle surface). Van Zwol, in [0018], and [0095], discloses that at least one of the cover layers that can be positioned between the core and/or between the cap layer (protective) can be a doped silicon layer and Van Zwol, in [0102], discloses that the dopant can be B or P i.e., the doped silicon layer is a p-type silicon (claimed DUV active layer), and Van Zwol, in [0126], discloses that at least one of the cap layers (protective) can be a Mo/Si containing layer and that the cap layer can be oxides (claimed second protective layer). Van Zwol, in [0016], discloses that at least one of the cap layers can be an absorber for IR radiation wherein the cap layer can be a metal cap layer, and Van Zwol, in [0120], discloses that the metal cap layer that acts as IR absorbers (line 1 of [0114]) can be a Mo layer (claimed IR active layer). Van Zwol, in [0135], discloses that the pellicle core layer can be a carbon nanotube (claims 16-20, 30-31, 34). Van Zwol, in [0018], and [0135], discloses that the core layer of the pellicle can be a nanotube layer and that the core layer along with the cap layers and/or cover layer can be layered such that at least two core layers sandwich the cap layers i.e., one of the core layer (nanotube) that is on the EUV membrane is facing the reticle and one of the core layer (nanotube material layer) is facing the projection system (claims 36-37). Van Zwol, in [0051], [0057], and [0069], discloses that the patterned beam reflected from the reticle and through the pellicle is imaged by the projection system (projection optics) to the substrate coated with the resist (claims 23-24, 32-33). Van Zwol, in [0008], discloses that the EUV pellicle membrane can have thickness of about 10 to 100nm (claim 25). Van Zwol, in [0009],[0018], discloses that the EUV membrane comprises protective cap layers, such that the core layer (nanotube layer, [0135]) can be positioned between protective layer (cap layers or cover layers) (claim 26).
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) 21-22, 28-29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0146332 (hereinafter referred to as Van Zwol) in view of U. S. Patent Application No. 2022/0244634 (hereinafter referred to as Hsu).
Van Zwol is discussed in paragraph no. 4, above.
Van Zwol, in [0135], discloses that the core layer of EUV membrane can be a nanotube layer (nanotube membrane). Van Zwol, in [0273], discloses that the frame (pellicle frame) supports the membrane (pellicle) and is coupled to the mask (reticle).
The difference between the claims and Van Zwol is that Van Zwol does not disclose the nanotube recited (claim 21) and the length of nanotube recited in claim 22. Van Zwol does not disclose frame material recited in claim 28 or that the frame includes vent holes (claim 29).
Hsu, in [0022], [0026], discloses that the nanotube core of the pellicle can be either a single walled or multiwalled carbon nanotube, and that the nanotube length is greater than 1 micron. Hsu, in [0041], discloses that the pellicle frame includes vent holes, and Hsu, in [0040], discloses that the pellicle frame material comprises anodized alumina or silicon or titanium.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Van Zwol by employing the claimed length and structure of the nanotube taught by Hsu, because Van Zwol does not limit the structure or shape of the nanotube used for the pellicle core, and Hsu, in [0026]-[0027], discloses that the nanotube can be single walled or multiwalled as long as the thickness of nanotube shell does not degrade the transparency of the membrane. It would be obvious to modify Van Zwol by using the claimed length of the nanotube for the pellicle core as taught by Hsu because Van Zwol does not prohibit the claimed length and discloses that the nanotubes can be joined end to end to get the desired length that would result in a length greater than individual nanotubes. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Van Zwol by employing the claimed material to form the pellicle frame as taught by Hsu because Van Zwol teaches the use of a frame and Hsu teaches in [0040], that the claimed material can be used for the pellicle frame so as to impart rigidity and sufficient mechanical strength. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Van Zwol by incorporating vent holes in the pellicle frame as taught by Hsu because Hsu in [0041], discloses that the ventholes in the frame enable the maintenance of the air pressure equivalence.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejections made over pending claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection made in the previous office action have been maintained. With respect to applicant’s argument that the capping layers discussed in the rejection cites portions of Van Zwol are not protective capping layer but cap layers for reducing IR transmission and does not disclose the claimed second protective layer or protective layer. Van Zwol, in [0264], discloses that oxides of silicon can be used as protective cap layer and Van Zwol, in [0018], discloses cap layer that are multiple cap layers that cover the core layer, And Van Zwol. In [0247], discloses that one of the cap layers can be MoSi2, and in Claims 25-26 of Van Zwol, discloses that the cap layer includes a protective cap layer wherein the cap layer includes Molybdenum and the protective cap is silicon oxide and suggests the claimed MoSiO layer. Additionally, Van Zwol teaches that the core layers are coated with Molybdenum and that Molybdenum diffuses into Silicon ([0120]) suggests the doping of Molybdenum into silicon and as discussed above the metal cap is coated with protective cap that includes oxides of silicon and is the same claimed Molybdenum doped silicon oxide. Furthermore, nothing in the claims or the instant disclosure suggests the extensiveness of Molybdenum doping or disclose or recite the gradation of Molybdenum in the silicon oxide layer or if Molybdenum is present at all at the outer portion of the protective cap layer i.e., the silicon oxide protective layer that is coated over the Molybdenum silicide layer .
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Daborah Chacko-Davis whose telephone number is (571) 272-1380. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30AM-6:00PM EST Mon-Fri. 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 571-272-8300. 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.
/DABORAH CHACKO-DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 March 24, 2026.