DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 12 and 18, the cancellation of claims 2-3, 6-7 and 19, the addition of new claims 20-25 as well as the accompanying arguments, filed 01/20/2026, has overcome the rejections presented in the previous Office Action dated 10/17/2025. Therefore, the previously presented rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection are made below in view of the disclosures of Agricola and Jung.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agricola (US 2025/0004362).
Agricola discloses a pellicle membrane for a lithographic apparatus, wherein the pellicle membrane includes metal silicide and a reinforcing network that can be located between metal silicide layers. (Abstract). Agricola discloses this pellicle membrane is for use in connection with EUV lithographic apparatus and EUV lithographic tools. (Para, 0002). Agricola also discloses pellicle assemblies and lithographic apparatus comprising such assemblies. (Para, 0002). Agricola illustrates in Figure 2a contamination particle 26 incident upon the pellicle 19, which holds the contamination particle sufficiently far from the patterned surface 24 of the mask MA that it is not imaged onto substrates by the lithographic apparatus LA. (Para, 0072; Fig.2). Agricola discloses a pellicle assembly according to an embodiment of the invention may allow a mask pattern (on the patterning device) to be provided which remains substantially defect free during use (the mask pattern is protected from contamination by the pellicle). (Para, 0072).
Agricola discloses the pellicle assembly 15 may be constructed by depositing the pellicle 19 directly on top of a substrate which is to provide the frame 17. (Para, 0073; Fig.2). Agricola discloses after deposition of a film defining the pellicle 19, the substrate may be selectively back-etched to remove a central portion of the substrate and leave only an outer perimeter to form the frame 17 to support the pellicle 19. (Para, 0073; Fig.2). Agricola discloses the pellicle 19 may for example be formed from metal silicide or doped metal silicide described by the formula Mx(Si)yDz, where M denotes a metal, Si denotes silicon, and D denotes a dopant and the subscripts x, y and z denote the relative ratios of M, Si and D respectively. (Para, 0074). Agricola also discloses the metal M may be one of a range of metals and may be selected from the group comprising Ce, Pr, Sc, Eu, Nd, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Mo, Ru, Rh, La, Y, and Be. (Para, 0074). Agricola discloses the preferred metals are zirconium, molybdenum or beryllium with molybdenum as the most preferred. (Para, 0074). Agricola discloses the dopant D may be one of a range of dopants including oxygen, carbon, boron or nitrogen with the preferred dopant being nitrogen. (Para, 0075). These disclosures teach the limitation of claims 4-5.
Agricola then illustrates in Figures 3A-3B a pellicle assembly 115 according to an embodiment of the invention where the pellicle assembly 115 comprises a pellicle membrane 119 and a frame 117 which supports the pellicle membrane. (Para, 0078; Fig.3A-3B). These disclosures and the illustrations of Figures 3A-3B teach the limitation of claim 1, ‘A pellicle for an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) reflective mask, comprising: a pellicle frame; and a main membrane attached to the pellicle frame…’ Agricola discloses the pellicle membrane 119 comprises carbon nanotubes 130 located between two metal silicide layers 132,133 and the metal silicide layers may for example be MoSiN. (Para, 0079; Fig.3A-3B). Agricola discloses the lower layer 132 of metal silicide is substantially flat whereas an upper layer 133 of metal silicide includes ridges where it passes over the carbon nanotubes 130. (Para, 0079; Fig.3A-3B). These disclosures and the disclosures of Agricola as discussed above teach the limitation of claim 1, ‘A pellicle for an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) reflective mask, comprising: …wherein: the main membrane includes a plurality of nanotubes, and each of the plurality of nanotubes is covered by a coating layer containing a transition metal silicide.’
Agricola discloses the layer of metal silicide is deposited (e.g. using sputtering) and it may be a thin layer such as less than 5 nanometers and it may have a thickness of around 2 nanometers (e.g. 2-4 nanometers). (Para, 0086). This disclosure teaches the limitation of claim 11. Agricola discloses the carbon nanotubes may be single wall nanotubes and may have a diameter of between 0.2 m and 2 nm (this is a typical thickness for a single walled carbon nanotube). (Para, 0088). This disclosures teaches the limitation of claim 8. From this disclosure, it necessarily follows the other option for the carbon nanotubes would be multi walled nanotubes; therefore, this disclosures also teaches the limitation of claims 9-10.
Agricola discloses the carbon nanotubes may be bundled or not bundled and if the carbon nanotubes are not bundled, then they may have a thickness on the pellicle membrane of up to around 4 nanometers (two nanotubes of 2 nm crossing over each other). (Para, 0088). Agricola discloses they may have a thickness of less than this, e.g. 2 nanometers or less, or even 1 nm or less. (Para, 0088). Agricola discloses if the carbon nanotubes are bundled then they may have a bundle thickness of up to 5 nm or even up to 10 nm and this may provide a thickness on the pellicle membrane of up to around 20 nm (two nanotubes of 10 nm crossing over each other). (Para, 0088). Agricola discloses the carbon nanotubes may for example have a length of 100 microns or more and may have a length of the order of millimeters. (Para, 0089). Agricola discloses that optionally, a layer of material such as metal may be deposited on top of the carbon nanotubes and it may be formed using atomic layer deposition. (Para, 0090). Agricola discloses a second layer of metal silicide is deposited on top of the carbon nanotubes (on top of the optional metal layer if present), e.g. using sputtering. (Para, 0090). Agricola discloses this second layer of metal silicide may be thin, for example having a thickness of 5 nanometers or less and may even have a thickness of around 2 nanometers (e.g. 2-4 nanometers). (Para, 0100). This disclosures teaches the limitation of claim 11. Agricola also discloses while sputtering is used to provide the metal silicide layers in the described embodiment, other methods may be used such as atomic layer deposition (ALD) which has the advantage that no plasma is present, which avoids potential damage to the carbon nanotubes. (Para, 0101). Agricola discloses that because the carbon nanotubes are coated on both sides by metal silicide, the behavior of the pellicle membrane in terms of outgassing will be the same as for a pellicle membrane formed entirely of metal silicide, which is advantageous because it means that special contamination control methods directed towards carbon nanotubes may not be required. (Para, 0102). Agricola discloses the carbon nanotubes may be coated, for example with Titanium, Zirconium or Tungsten or their oxides (other metals or alloys may be used). (Para, 0102). Agricola explains that coating the carbon nanotubes may increase the emissivity of the carbon nanotubes, thereby advantageously allowing more effective cooling of the pellicle membrane. (Para, 0102).
Therefore, the recitations of claims 1, 4-5 and 8-11 are anticipated by the disclosures and illustrations of Agricola.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18 and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 2017/0038676) in view of Agricola.
Jung discloses a pellicle includes a pellicle membrane, which includes a porous thin film. The porous thin film includes a plurality of nanowires, which are arranged across one another to form a net structure. (Abstract). Jung also discloses a photomask assembly includes the pellicle and a photomask, wherein the pellicle is fixed to a surface of the photomask. (Abstract). Jung also discloses the use of the photomask assembly. Jung explains that in an exposure process of a semiconductor device manufacturing process, a pattern formed on a photomask (or reticle) may be projection-exposed on a wafer on which a resist film is formed so that a latent pattern may be formed on the resist film. (Para, 0194). Jung discloses a resist pattern may be formed on the wafer by using a developing process. (Para, 0194). Jung explains, when foreign materials, for example, particles, are present on the photomask, the foreign materials may be transferred onto the wafer along with the pattern and cause pattern failures. (Para, 0194). Jung also discloses an EUV exposure process may be performed by using a reflective photomask including a multilayered reflective layer provided on a surface of a front layer on which a pattern region is formed. (Para, 0196). Jung goes on to disclose an embodiment of an IC device manufacturing apparatus 800 which may protect the photomask PM by using the pellicle 820 during an exposure process using an EUV light source. (Para, 0198). Jung explains the pellicle 820 according to example embodiments may include the porous thin film 120 (refer to FIGS. 1 and 5) including a plurality of nanowires arranged across one another to form a net-like structure. (Para, 0198). Jung further discloses, occurrence of errors due to degradation of a pellicle membrane may be effectively limited and/or prevented during an exposure process, and a pattern having a desired shape may be effectively transferred to a precise position of a wafer W to be exposed. (Para, 0198). These disclosures teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 18, ‘ A method of manufacturing a semiconductor, comprising: forming a photo resist layer over a target layer; exposing the photo resist layer to an EUV radiation reflected by a photo mask with a pellicle; and developing the exposed photo resist layer to form a resist pattern, wherein the pellicle includes: a pellicle frame; and a main membrane attached to the pellicle frame, the main membrane includes a plurality of nanotubes…’
Still, the disclosures of Jung fail to teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 18, ‘ … and each of the plurality of nanotubes is covered by a coating layer containing a transition metal silicide.’ However, the disclosures of Jung in view of the disclosures of Agricola provide such teachings. Agricola is relied upon as discussed in paragraph 4 above. The disclosures of Jung in view of the disclosures of Agricola as discussed in paragraph 4 above teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 18, ‘ …and each of the plurality of nanotubes is covered by a coating layer containing a transition metal silicide.’ Moreover, the disclosures of Jung in view of Agricola as discussed in paragraph 4 above teach and/or suggest the limitation of claims 20-25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the present application by Applicant to modify the disclosures of Jung in view of the disclosures of Agricola because both Jung and Agricola are directed to analogous pellicles for photomasks and/or reticles used in photolithography processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully forming a desired pattern in a resist layer such as disclosed in Jung using the pellicle disclosed in Agricola to protect the photomask from debris during a fabrication process, especially during an exposure or irradiation step.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As discussed above the disclosures of Jung and/or Agricola teach and/or suggest the limitations of independent claim 12, ‘A pellicle for an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) reflective mask, comprising: a pellicle frame; and a main membrane attached to the pellicle frame, wherein: the main membrane includes a plurality of nanotubes, and each of the plurality of nanotubes is covered by a first coating layer made of a transition metal silicide or a transition metal silicide-nitride…’ Still, the disclosures of Jung and/or Agricola as discussed above fail to teach and/or suggest the limitation of claim 12, ‘ A pellicle for an extreme ultraviolet (EUV) reflective mask, comprising: … and a second coating layer disposed over the first coating layer.’ The disclosures of Timmerman as discussed in the previous Office Action also fails to cure the deficiency of Jung and Agricola. Moreover, the prior art fails to provide other relevant disclosures which cure the deficiencies of Jung, Agricola and Timmerman to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, independent claim 12 as amended and claims 13-17 depending therefrom are allowable.
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 CALEEN O SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899