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 given careful consideration. Rejection of the previous action not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the amendment and arguments of the applicant.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.
Claims 1,5,7,9,12,14-16 and 19-26 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.
The language “the insulating layer comprises a silicon dioxide (SiO2) or acrylic resin, the insulating layer is non-pressure-sensitive adhesive’” is confusing.
Does the claims intend to require one of silicon dioxide or acrylic resin in combination with a non-pressure-sensitive adhesive, or are these alternatives (SiO2, acrylic resin or a non-pressure-sensitive-adhesive), or are the claims intending the describe the SiO2 and acrylic resin as not possessing pressure-sensitive adhesiveness ? (see prepub of the instant specification at [0053])
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 1,7,9,12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated Kashida et al. JP-H0743892 as evidenced by Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024.
Kashida et al. JP-H0743892 (machine translation attached) in example 1, coats an Al-7075 duralumin pellicle frame with 15 micron thick polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) and a dye [0015-0018]. A nitrocellulose film was then attached to the frame using an epoxy. A polybutene adhesive was then coated on the opposite face as the pellicle film. Example 2 was similar but used a fluorinated polymer with the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
64
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in place of PMMA
Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024 establishes the composition of 7075 aluminum ( including a disclosure of minimum (min” and maximum (max) values of Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, Si, Ti and Zn. The Ti content is up to 0.20%.
The position of the examiner is that the Al-7075 used in the reference includes Ti and is therefore a titanium alloy. The examiner has interpreted the “non-pressure-sensitive adhesive” as describing the lack of pressure sensitive adhesive character in the SiO2 or acrylic resin for the purposes of applying art. The PMMA is an acrylic resin and is applied to a thickness of 15 microns, which is thicker than the 5 microns used in the examples. The claims do not specify a minimum Ti content, so any frame including Ti can be interpreted as being a Ti alloy. As the Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024 is used as an evidentiary reference to establish the composition of the A7075 alloys, the date does not need to be prior to the filing date accorded the instant application..
Claims 1,7,9,16,19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Hamada et al. EP 1868033, as evidenced by Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024
Hamada et al. EP 1868033 teaches an aluminum frame of A7075-T651, which is sand blasted and then etched with an alkaline solution. It was then coated using electrodeposition with a 5 micron thermosetting Electrocoat Frosty W-2. This weas coated on one face with a silicon pressure sensitive adhesive, provided with a PTFE filter and a Teflon film is adhered using an epoxy resin. This was then attached to a Cr mask and exposed using ArF [0044-0054]. Examples 2-4 are similar [0055-0092]. A pellicle equipped with a pellicle frame formed by providing an anodized coating on the surface of an aluminum alloy has been used conventionally. With regard to this pellicle frame, an acid such as sulfuric acid, an organic acid (oxalic acid, acetic acid, etc.), or nitric acid, or a salt thereof that has been incorporated into the anodized coating during formation of the coating, dyeing, sealing, or surface etching, etc. desorbs from the interior of the frame during irradiation with UV light (i rays or g rays, KrF laser, ArF laser, F.sub.2 laser, etc.) in a lithographic step, exposure, or photomask storage, is generated as a gaseous material in a closed space formed between the pellicle and the photomask, and undergoes a photochemical reaction with ammonia, a cyan compound, or another hydrocarbon compound, etc. present in the environment under UV light during exposure or separately generated and supplied from the pellicle member, etc., thereby generating the cloudiness called haze, represented by ammonium sulfate, etc., or generating microparticles [0016]. In the pellicle of the present invention, the polymer coating provided on the pellicle frame covers various types, such as an epoxy resin, an acrylic resin, an aminoacrylic resin, or a polyester resin, but it is preferable to form the polymer coating from a thermosetting resin rather than a thermoplastic resin. Examples of the thermosetting resin are primarily acrylic resins. After a thermosetting coating is electrodeposition coated, the coating may be thermally cured [0029]. The present invention relates to a pellicle for lithography that is used as a debris shield for a lithography mask when producing a liquid crystal display panel or a semiconductor device such as an LSI or a ULSI [0001].
The position of the examiner is that the Al7075-T651 used in the reference includes Ti (as evidenced by Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024) and is therefore a titanium alloy. The examiner has interpreted the “non-pressure-sensitive adhesive” as describing the lack of pressure sensitive adhesive character in the SiO2 or acrylic resin for the purposes of applying art. As the electrocoated Elelcoat Frosty W-2 is the same product and thickness as used in example 1 of the instant application.
Claims 1,7,9,16,19 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. EP 1868033, in view of Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024, Nagata et al. 20130065164, Hatakeyama et al. 20090081588 and/or Hasegawa et al. 20120148945
Nagata et al. 20130065164 in example 1 forms an Al alloy pellicle frame, which is sand blasted, anodized to form an oxide coating) and blackened. The interior surfaces were then coated with 10 microns of an acrylic adhesive and a filter provided, a Teflon pellicle membrane was attached via an epoxy adhesive (thermoset). An acrylic adhesive was then applied and use to bond the pellicle to a Cr photomask, and the composite used in an ArF scanner. [0068-0086]. In manufacturing semiconductor devices such as LSI and super-LSI or in manufacturing a liquid crystal display board or the like, a pattern transferring is conducted by irradiating light to an exposure original plate such as a semiconductor wafer or an original plate for liquid crystal, but if a dust particle exists adhering to the exposure original plate, the dust particle absorbs the light or refracts it, giving rise to deformation and roughened edges to a transferred pattern and black stains to a white background, which lead to problems such as a damaged dimension, a poor quality, a deformed appearance, and lowering of the performance and the yield of the finished device [0003].
Hasegawa et al. 20120148945 teaches that In either of the topcoat and topcoatless processes, the ArF immersion lithography requires a scanning speed of about 300 to 700 mm/sec in order to gain higher throughputs. In the event of such high-speed scanning, if the water repellency of the resist or protective film is insufficient, water droplets may be left on the film surface after scanning. Residual droplets may cause defects. To eliminate such defects, it is necessary to improve the water repellency of the relevant coating film and the flow or mobility of water (hereinafter, water slip) on the film. The film material must be designed so as to increase the receding contact angle (see 2nd International Symposium on Immersion Lithography, 12-15 Sep. 2005, Defectivity data taken with a full-field immersion exposure tool, Nakano et al). In connection with such polymer design, it is reported that introduction of fluorine is effective for improving water repellency, and formation of micro-domain structure by a combination of different water repellent groups is effective for improving water slip. See XXIV FATIPEC Congress Book, Vol. B, p 15 (1997) [0008]. An antireflective coating ARC-29A (Nissan Chemical Co., Ltd.) of 95 nm thick was deposited on a silicon substrate. The resist solution was applied onto the ARC and baked at 120.degree. C. for 60 seconds to form a resist film of 150 nm thick. Using an ArF scanner model S610C (Nikon Corp., NA 1.20, a 0.98, 4/5 dipole illumination (open angle 35.degree.), binary mask), the resist film on the wafer was exposed at a scan speed of 500 mm/s. This was followed by baking (PEB) at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds and development with a 2.38 wt % TMAH aqueous solution for 30 seconds. The wafer as developed was further baked at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds, completing a 45-nm line-and-space pattern [0160]
Hatakeyama et al. 20090081588 discloses pellicle in scanners [0007] and immersion scanners with speeds of 300-550 mm/sec. [0015]
Hamada et al. EP 1868033 does not describe scanning exposures or the patterns the devices will be used to produce.
It would have been obvious to modify the example 1 of Hamada et al. EP 1868033, which has Ti content as evidenced in Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024 by forming either a semiconductor or liquid crystal display as taught at [0003] of Hamada et al. EP 1868033 using scanning exposures in the 300-550 or 300-700 mm/sec as taught for ArF scanners by Hatakeyama et al. 20090081588 and/or Hasegawa et al. 20120148945 based upon the use of scanning exposures to form these devices in Nagata et al. 20130065164 to perform the exposures rapidly and with a high throughput with a reasonable expectation of forming useful devices.
Claims 1,7,9,15,16, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada et al. EP 1868033, in view of Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024 and (Lin et al. 20210132490 and/or Kohmura et al. 20170212418)
Lin et al. 20210132490 teaches that the border or the pellicle membrane can be a different materials from the top membrane portion. The use of silicon as a border material is disclosed. The pellicle frame may have the same shape as the border (e.g., rectangular), as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B. In one example, the pellicle frame may be formed from Si, SiC, SiN, glass, a low coefficient of thermal expansion material (e.g., an Al alloy, a Ti alloy, Invar, Kovar, or the like), another suitable material, or any combination thereof. [0055,0065].
Kohmura et al. 20170212418 teaches the outer/peripheral edge of the pellicle membrane/film is formed of silicon for reinforcement. [0063].
Hamada et al. EP 1868033 does not exemplify the use of a support at the rim/periphery of the pellicle membrane.
It would have been obvious to modify example 1 of Hamada et al. EP 1868033
by adding a support along the periphery of the pellicle membrane as is known in the art as evidenced by Lin et al. 20210132490 and/or Kohmura et al. 20170212418 to reinforce the pellicle membrane at the edge/rim/periphery with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle.
Claim 1,7,9,14,16, 19-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirasaki et al. 20160291460, in view of Hamada et al. EP 1868033 and Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024
Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 in example 1, teaches and aluminum allow frame with a height of 2.5 mm with a (protruding) vent was formed. A pellicle film was then attached via an adhesive and trimmed and the resulting pellicle was adhered to a mask [0068-0071]. The use of this pellicle with EUV is disclosed [0054,0064,0066]. It is possible, as need be, to apply to the surface of the pellicle frame 21 such treatments as anodic oxidation, plating, polymer coating, and dyeing. Also, in order to suppress the reflection of the exposure light and to improve the accuracy of the visual foreign material inspection, the pellicle frame 21 is preferably black in color. Especially in the case where the mother material of the pellicle frame 21 is aluminum alloy, it is preferable that the surface of the pellicle frame is roughened by abrasive such as stainless beads, glass beads, and carborundom, and then is subjected to black alumite treatment [0062]. In general, a pellicle is basically built up in a manner such that a pellicle membrane having a high transmittance against the light used in the exposure process is adhered tensely to an upper annular face of a pellicle frame, and an airtight gasket is adhered to the lower annular face of the pellicle frame. The airtight gasket is generally composed of an agglutinant layer. The pellicle membrane is made of cellulose nitrate, cellulose acetate and a fluorine-containing polymer or the like which transmit well such lights that are often used in the light exposure (e.g., g-line [430 nm] and i-line [365 nm] created by mercury lamp, or KrF excimer laser [248 nm], and ArF excimer laser [193 nm]) or in the case of the EUV exposure, a very thin silicon is being studied to make the pellicle membrane [0003,0006]. The present invention relates to a pellicle for lithography, useful as a dust-fender employed in the scenes of manufacturing a semiconductor device, an IC package, a printed circuit board, a liquid crystal display panel, an organic EL display panel and the like [0002,0004] As for the adhesive to adhere the pellicle membrane 20 to the pellicle frame 21 may be anything that have been conventionally used. In particular, for example, acrylic resin adhesive, epoxy resin adhesive, silicone resin adhesive, or fluorine-containing polymers such as fluorine-containing silicone adhesive can be used. Among these, the fluorine-containing polymers are preferred. Examples of the fluorine-containing polymers include CYTOP (a product name of ASAHI GLASS CO., LTD). The adhesive is diluted in a solvent, as need be, and is applied to the upper annular face of the pellicle frame. On this occasion the method adopted may be brushing, spraying, by automatic dispenser or the like [0058]. There is no limitation to the mother material for the pellicle frame 21 of the present invention so long as it has such strength and rigidity as are required of the pellicle frame, and examples of such include aluminum, aluminum alloy (such as JIS 5000 series, JIS 6000 series, and JIS 7000 series), iron, iron alloy, ceramics (such as SiC, AlN, and Al.sub.2O.sub.3), ceramics/metal composite material (such as Al—SiC, Al—AlN, and Al—Al.sub.2O.sub.3), carbon steel, tool steel, stainless steel, engineering plastic (such as PE, PA, and PEEK), carbon fiber composite material (such as GFRP and CFRP). Among these aluminum and aluminum alloy are preferable because of their favorable strength, rigidity weight and cost [0061].
Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 does not treat of the pellicle frame used in example 1, The exact material of the pellicle frame or the devices made using the exposure of example 1. As this is EUV, the entire apparatus is under vacuum/reduced pressure (EUV is absorbed by oxygen/air)
With respect to claims 1,9,14,16 19-21 and 26, it would have been obvious to one skilled int art to modify the process of example 1 of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 by using the aluminum-titanium alloy A7075-T651 (see Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024) which is sand blasted and then etched with an alkaline solution and then coated using electrodeposition with a 5 micron thermosetting Electrocoat Frosty W-2 as in Hamada et al. EP 1868033 based upon the direction to use 7000 series Al alloys at [0061] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460
With respect to claims 1,9,14,16 19-21 and 26, it would have been obvious to one skilled int art to modify the process of example 1 of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 by using the aluminum-titanium alloy A7075-T651 (see Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024) which is sand blasted and then etched with an alkaline solution and then coated using electrodeposition with a 5 micron thermosetting Electrocoat Frosty W-2 as in Hamada et al. EP 1868033 based upon the direction to use 7000 series Al alloys at [0061] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460,and adhering the pellicle using an epoxy adhesive to a photomask as disclosed at [0058] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 with a reasonable expectation a forming a useful mask/pellicle composite.
With respect to claims 1,9,14,16 19-23 and 26, it would have been obvious to one skilled int art to modify the process of example 1 of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 by using the aluminum-titanium alloy A7075-T651 (see Instavoxel, “Aluminum 7075-T6 technical data sheet”, 1 page (C) 2024) which is sand blasted and then etched with an alkaline solution and then coated using electrodeposition with a 5 micron thermosetting Electrocoat Frosty W-2 as in Hamada et al. EP 1868033 based upon the direction to use 7000 series Al alloys at [0061] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460, the pellicle is adhered using an epoxy adhesive as disclosed at [0058] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 and using the resultant process to form semiconductor devices or LCDs as taught at [0002,0004] of Shirasaki et al. 20160291460 with a reasonable expectation a forming a useful devices.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The provision of an insulating layer of SiO2 on a Ti or Al-Ti frame is not obvious as these are typically anodized to form a Ti or Al(Ti) oxide instead (see claim 5)
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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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 October 13, 2026
