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 Rejection of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn. Responses to the arguments are presented after the first rejection they are directed to.
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 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamamoto 20030136512, as evidenced by Nakayama et al., “Ceraphite, a hard and high strength new carbon material”, 1977 proceedings 13th biennial conference, pp 424-425 (06/1977).
Yamamoto 20030136512 teaches a pellicle frame 30 is constituted by four pellicle frame pieces 30a to 30d. The pellicle frame pieces 30a and 30b are made of a porous material (e.g., graphite or ceraphite), whereas the pellicle frame pieces 30c and 30d are made of an unporous material [0054]. According to the second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a reticle with a pellicle, comprising a reticle, a pellicle film, and a pellicle frame which supports the pellicle film so as to form a space between the reticle and the pellicle film [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
362
369
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nakayama et al., “Ceraphite, a hard and high strength new carbon material”, 1977 proceedings 13th biennial conference, pp 424-425 (06/1977) describes the process for making CERAPHITE from thermally and chemically treated petroleum pitch, which was then crushed , pressure molds and baked in a furnace. The carbon does not melt, but the particles cohere together. Generally products made of glassy carbon with thicknesses of more than several millimeters were thought to be difficult to achieve, but there are no such restrictions with CERAPHITE products, which come out of the molds and then can be further machined into the desired shape. The bulk density of 1.60 g/cm3, the coefficient of thermal expansion is 3.0 x 10-6 /oC, the ash content is 0.1 % (max) and the compressive strength is 2700 kg/cm2
The position of the examiner is that the pellicle frame of having two sides (30a and 30b), made of ceraphite, which is a glassy carbon. These are made by heating as in Nakayama et al., “Ceraphite, a hard and high strength new carbon material”, 1977 proceedings 13th biennial conference, pp 424-425 (06/1977) and then machined to form the sides 30a and 30b.
In the response of 3/17/2026, the applicant argues that the frame of Yamamoto 20030136512 is simply 4 parts arranged in a frame, where two of these are made of ceraphite. And that this does not meet the limitations of the claims. The examiner disagrees, pointing out that the claims are open to the frame being formed of other materials as well, due to the use of open “comprising” language. The claims clearly embrace the embodiments of the claims, particularly noting that claim 13 specifically describes the use of other materials in the “composite frame”, which might be the other sides or the manifolds (31a,31b), the pellicle film (21) and/or the o-rings (32a,32b) illustrated in figure 4 (reproduced above). The rejection stands.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto 20030136512, in view of Nakayama et al., “Ceraphite, a hard and high strength new carbon material”, 1977 proceedings 13th biennial conference, pp 424-425 (06/1977), Okada et al. JP 2004170569 and Hsu et al. 20160349610.
Okada et al. JP 2004170569 (machine translation attached) teaches in example 1, A rectangular frame with an outer dimension of 149 mm × 122 mm and an inner dimension of 145 mm × 118 mm is cut out from a mirror-polished flat plate made of quartz glass with a plate thickness of 5.8 mm using an end mill, and each corner is rounded with a radius of 5 mm. A pellicle frame with a height of 4.0 mm was prepared by polishing the side surfaces with diamond abrasive grains and mirror-finishing the entire surface. A plurality of holes each having a diameter of 2 mm are formed on opposite sides of the pellicle frame to form a gas discharge hole and a gas introduction hole, and then a pellicle having a thickness of 0.8 mm and a planar shape that matches the outer dimensions of the pellicle frame A pellicle was produced by bonding the plates using a fluorine-based adhesive. A 0.5 mm thick layer of fluorine-based adhesive was formed on the other end surface of the quartz frame [0019].
Hsu et al. 20160349610 teaches that the pellicle frame may be formed by processes including photolithography processing, wet chemical etching, and/or other suitable processes, and may be followed by an etchback or chemical mechanical polish (CMP) process. The first material may also include a suitable porous material with pore channels including AAO or porous materials formed by a sintering method, and no further processes may be necessary. For example, in some embodiments, the first material may include a uniformly continuous porous material, and the pellicle frame may be fabricated using the uniformly continuous porous material [0036].
Yamamoto 20030136512 does not teach the polishing of the pellicle frame.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the process of forming the pellicle frame in Ceraphite taught in the combination of Yamamoto 20030136512, in view of Nakayama et al., “Ceraphite, a hard and high strength new carbon material”, 1977 proceedings 13th biennial conference, pp 424-425 (06/1977) by polishing the surface of the pellicle frame as is known in the art as evidenced in Okada et al. JP 2004170569 and Hsu et al. 20160349610 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle frame.
The rejection stands for the reasons above as no further arguments were directed at this rejection.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tsuji JP 2011022547.
Tsuji JP 2011022547 (machine translation attached) teaches in figure 13 a ring (70) surrounding the wafer (w) which is preferably made of glassy carbon [0038].
The examiner notes that the instant specification states that the frame shape can be any shape (see prepub at [0087] and the examiner holds that the “frame shape” language added includes a ring.
PNG
media_image3.png
301
228
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shirashaki et al. 20100330467 establishes that pellicle frames having ring., rectangular or square shapes are known in the pellicle art [0063]
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at 571-272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 April 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights