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 § 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) 1-4, 13-17, 19, and 22-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0174361 (hereinafter referred to as Yanase) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0057394 (hereinafter referred to as Kruizinga).
Yanase, in [0011], [0019], and [0020]-[0021], discloses a pellicle laminate that includes a pellicle frame that has a pressure-sensitive adhesive agent applied to an upper end face of the pellicle frame (to form the claimed first adhesive agent layer), and forming the pellicle over the upper end face on the adhesive agent layer (first adhesive agent layer) and covering the pellicle with a gas-impermeable film (claimed first protective sheet), and forming a pressure sensitive adhesive agent on the lower end face of the pellicle frame (forming the second adhesive agent layer) and forming a layer (release layer , claimed second protective sheet) on the lower end face of the pellicle over the adhesive agent to form the claimed pellicle frame laminate (claims 1-2). Yanase, in [0011], and [0034], discloses that the film coated on the pellicle (upper end face) is a silicon oxynitride film or metal film and has a color that is different than the color of the film (polycarbonate or polypropylene, [0021]) coated on the lower end face of the pellicle frame (claim 3). Yanase, in claims 4-5, discloses that the gas impermeable film is arranged on to the entire pellicle that is arranged onto the upper end face of the pellicle frame (i.e., the gas impermeable film is conforming to the shape of the pellicle frame) (claim 4). Yanase, in [0020], [0022], [0023], [0036] and in figure 1A, discloses that the upper end of the frame is covered with the adhesive agent with the same width as that of the frame and the pellicle is stretched to adhere to the frame via the adhesive agent (covers the adhesive agent) and the gas impermeable film is coated onto the entirety of the pellicle i.e., the width of the film can be larger than the pellicle frame width and as illustrated in figures 1A through 1C, the protective sheet has a region within the inner diameter of the frame and the protective sheet (impermeable film or release layer/separator) can have the same dimensions as that of the pellicle frame or within the inner diameter of the pellicle frame as recited in claims 13-16. Yanase, in [0006], and [0017], and [0022], disclose that the pellicle (pellicle frame laminate) is used in EUV exposure (claim 17). Yanase, in [0044], lines 28-39, discloses the manufacturing of the pellicle wherein the protective sheet (PET) that covers that pellicle frame laminate by being bonded to the adhesive agent layer (adhesive agent, claimed first adhesive agent layer) that is formed atop the pellicle frame (support frame) surface is peeled (removed from the pressure-sensitive adhesive agent ) and thus the adhesive agent is exposed, and a pellicle film (ultrathin silicon film , claimed separately prepared pellicle film) is press bonded to the exposed adhesive agent (first adhesive agent layer) on the pellicle frame (support frame) to form the pellicle frame laminate and thereby form the pellicle assembly, and Yanase in [0006] and [0017] discloses the pellicle in the pellicle frame laminate (pellicle assembly) is used in EUV exposure (claims 19, 22 and 23).
The difference between the claims and Yanase is that Yanase does not disclose that no pellicle is attached to either upper end face or the lower end face of the pellicle frame.
Kruizinga, in [0471], discloses a frame that is either attached to the mask or not attached to the mask (patterning device) is a pellicle-less frame i.e., no pellicle film on either the upper end or lower end of the frame.
It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yanase by using a pellicle-less frame as taught by Kruizinga because Kruizinga teaches that the pellicle-less frame is easier to be attachable and removable from a mask and Yanase does not prohibit the use of the pellicle frame that has no pellicle film (pellicle membrane), and Kruizinga, in [0412], and [0471], discloses that the pellicle may be desired to be removed in a pellicle frame attachment apparatus if contamination has been detected, and having a pellicle-less frame enables secure attachment to the mask and easy access for pellicle cleaning without the reason to remove the frame from the mask.
Claim(s) 5-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0174361 (hereinafter referred to as Yanase) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0057394 (hereinafter referred to as Kruizinga) as applied to claims 1-4, 13-17, 19, and 22-23, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0401039 (hereinafter referred to as Ono).
Yanase in view of Kruizinga is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Yanase, in [0011],[0017], [0019]-[0021], discloses the pellicle frame and the adhesive agent on both sides of the frame and the formation of gas impermeable film and a release layer (first and second protective sheets) on both sides of the adhesive agents, wherein the pellicle frame is quadrangular and the films (gas impermeable film and release layer) are formed in the same shape as the pellicle frame as illustrated in figures 1A and 1B (claims 6, and 9).
The difference between the claims and Yanase in view of Kruizinga is that Yanase in view of Kruizinga does not disclose the gas impermeable film or the release layer bonded to the frame includes a tab (tabs) that is positioned on the films in the manner as recited in claims 5, 7-8, 10-12.
Ono, in [0009], [0048], [0053], [0099], discloses the protrusion parts (105) that are located on one end of the frame closer to the pellicle film (claimed first protective sheet side) and protrusion parts (105A) that are located on the other end of the frame- the side (the second protective sheet side) opposing the region on which the pellicle film is located, such that the protrusion parts are positioned on the pellicle frame on both opposing sides of the quadrangular frame and on the same side of the quadrangular frame, wherein the protrusion parts (protrusion parts, tabs) do not overlap each other, and the protrusion parts (claimed tabs) positioned on the quadrangular frame are illustrated in figures 4, 7, 10, 12, and 14. Ono, in [0103], discloses that the protrusion parts (tabs) can be more than 2 and/or less than 10, and that the sizes of the protrusion parts can be small or large such that the protrusion parts can vary in both dimensions and shapes and that dimensions can be modified.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yanase in view of Kruizinga by employing protrusion parts in the pellicle frame laminate (assembly) as taught by Ono because Yanase, discloses the use of jigs in the pellicle assembly so as to enable the peeling of the pellicle, and Ono, in the abstract, and [0103], discloses the use of protrusion parts in the pellicle assembly so as to enable the fixation of the pellicles to the mask, and to enable the suppression of the outgassing that is generated by the adhesive layer in the pellicle laminate.
Claim(s) 18, 20-21, and 24-25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0174361 (hereinafter referred to as Yanase) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0057394 (hereinafter referred to as Kruizinga) as applied to claims 1-4, 13-17, 19, and 22-23, and further in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0192217 (hereinafter referred to as Brouns).
Yanase in view of Kruizinga is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
The difference between the claims and Yanase in view of Kruizinga is that Yanase in view of Kruizinga does not disclose the housing of the pellicle assembly as recited in claim 18 or the transporting of the pellicle assembly as recited in claim 20 or the change in atmospheric pressure in the pellicle assembly while being transported or not as recited in claims 21, and 24-25.
Brouns, in [0139], discloses the use of a container for the pellicle assembly (pellicle frame laminate) wherein the container housing holds the pellicle assembly and is covered with a plate (lid) to form the claimed packaged product, and Brouns, in [0141], discloses the using of the container to house the pellicle assembly so as to transport the pellicle assembly (without the mask), and Brouns, in [0144], discloses that the container transports the pellicle assembly between locations that are either in vacuum or not at vacuum, and Brouns, in [0145], discloses that the container that houses the pellicle assembly can include changes in the atmospheric pressure in the interior of the container.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Yanase in view of Kruizinga by using a container to house the pellicle assembly as taught by Brouns because Yanase does not prohibit the use of a housing or the transportation of the pellicle assembly and Brouns in [0021], discloses that the using a container that can be sealed enables the transferring of the pellicle from a lithographic apparatus to a pellicle removal and attachment tool and in [0030]-[0031], Brouns discloses housing the pellicle assembly in the container in a manner that prevents the damage of the pellicle during the housing and Brouns, in [0137], discloses that using a container to house the pellicle assembly enables the use of a clean environment while transferring the pellicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment and Remarks, filed July 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 13-17, 19, and 22-23, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kruizinga, see paragraph no. 3, above. With respect to applicant’s argument that Yanase does not disclose a second adhesive agent on the lower end face or a second adhesive agent being directly covered with a second protective sheet, Yanase discloses in [0024], that an adhesive agent is applied on the lower end face of the pellicle frame and is the same as the claimed second adhesive agent on the lower end face, and Yanase in [0021], discloses that a release layer such as a PET or PTFE layer is applied on the lower end face to protect the adhesive layer on the lower end face (the part of the frame that attaches to the mask, the lower end face on the mask side), and is the same as the claimed second protective sheet that covers the second adhesive agent layer. With respect to applicant’s argument that Yanase does not teach that no pellicle film is attached to either the upper end face or the lower end face of the pellicle frame, Kruizinga is dependent upon to disclose the use of a pellicle frame that is pellicle-less i.e., no pellicle film/membrane on the frame (upper end or lower end). See paragraph no. 3, above.
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, Sally A. Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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 October 8, 2026.
Prosecution Insights