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 § 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) 1-9, 13-20, and 22-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0011372 (hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa).
Ishikawa, in the abstract, and in paragraph nos. [0010]-[0012], [0117], discloses the claimed pellicle assembly that comprises a pellicle film arranged on the support frame (claimed pellicle frame), the support frame comprises vent hole (vent hole or through hole provided in the support frame), and a filter that is attached to the vent hole (the filter covers the vent hole). Ishikawa, in [0123], discloses that the filter can be nanofibers (stacks fibers comprising nanotubes) or filter fiber stack that comprises carbon nanotubes or a filter includes nonwoven fabric filter membrane that comprises nanotubes (claims 1-3, and 18-19). Ishikawa, in [0123], discloses that the filter membrane includes filter membranes such as HEPA that has a fiber content of at least 70 % of the filter volume, and discloses that the filter capture particles greater than 0.15 micron i.e., the fiber diameter (hollow fibers or nanotubes) have a diameter of at least 0.15 micron and more (claim 4). Ishikawa, in [0011], and in [0110], discloses that the filter can be positioned inside the vent hole (inserted entirely) (claim 5). Ishikawa, in figure 11B, and [0133], discloses that the vent hole (reference 1, and 3) includes a counter bore (through hole, reference 25) and the filter is positioned at the counter bore (claim 6). Ishikawa, in [0111], and [0113], [0114], and figure 1B, discloses outer edge and inner edge surfaces of the vent hole, and discloses that the surfaces (a or b) include curved surfaces and are not limited to a plane i.e., edge of the opening (inner or outer) can be chamfered (claim 7). Ishikawa, in [0125], and in figure 8B, discloses the vent hole (opening or hole, reference 3) occupying a space in the support frame in less than about 50% of the lower end surface of the frame (claims 8-9). Ishikawa, in [0183], and [0185], discloses that the pellicle film is less than 1 micron, and the pellicle film includes polycrystalline silicon or single-crystal silicon or amorphous silicon (claim 10). Ishikawa, in [0184], discloses that the pellicle film includes a layer (protective layer) atop the pellicle film (pellicle film stack), and Ishikawa, in [0112], discloses that the pellicle film stack includes silicon substrate (polycrystalline silicon) along with silicon carbide or silicon nitride film stack (claimed coating of the inorganic compound on the pellicle film) (claims 14-15). Ishikawa, in [0123], discloses that the filter fibers are stacked and are stacked with nanotubes, ceramic filter (ceramic includes silicon nitride), glass filter etc., i.e., the fibers in the filter stack can be a laminate of nanotubes and ceramic material such as silicon nitride and is the same as the claimed coated nanofibers (claim 16). Ishikawa, in [0002], discloses that the pellicle is used for a photomask used in EUV lithography (used in a EUV mask) (claim 17). Ishikawa, in [0002], [0010], [0041], [0045], [0117], discloses that the pellicle film is provided/mounted on the support frame positioned on the master plate (photomask) such that the pellicle film is spaced apart from the photomask (master plate), and the master plate (photomask) is used in EUV lithography and used for the manufacturing of a semiconductor device, wherein the photomask (master plate) is used as the exposure device to expose or irradiate the light reflected by the master plate (photomask) so as to conduct/perform exposure on the sensitive substrate (semiconductor substrate with photosensitive film) (claims 20, and 22-24).
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) 10-12, and 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0011372 (hereinafter referred to as Ishikawa) in view of U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0154606 (hereinafter referred to as Yan).
Ishikawa is discussed in paragraph no. 3, above.
Ishikawa, in [0123], discloses that the filter capture particles greater than 0.15 micron i.e., the fiber diameter (hollow fibers or nanotubes) have a diameter of at least 0.15 micron and more. Ishikawa, in [0123], discloses that the filters used in the vent hole can be a plurality of filters (stacked) wherein each of the filter includes nonwoven fabric filter, and that the particle diameter of the particles filtered through the filter varies i.e., the opening in the filters vary in diameter (inherently have different average fiber diameter) (claim 12).
The difference between the claims and Ishikawa is that Ishikawa does not disclose the gradual decrease in the average fiber diameter in the direction and the resulting filtration accuracy gradient as recited in claims 10-11. Ishikawa does not disclose that the fibers such as the nanotubes or hollow fibers that constitute the filter are produced by electrospinning (claim 21).
Yan, in the abstract and [0008], and [0029], [0032], discloses that the filter comprises a fiber layer that includes plural cones (or cone array) i.e., the fiber diameter varies gradually from one end to the pointed end, and thereby the filter is a gradient filter, and inherently possesses a filtration accuracy gradient as claimed. Yan, in [0004], discloses that the fibers (nanofibers) of the filter are formed by electrospinning.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ishikawa by using the fibers in the filter that have a gradual gradation in the fiber diameter as taught by Yan because Ishikawa does not prohibit a varying diameter for the hollow fibers that constitute the filter, and Yan, in [0008], and [0041], discloses that the gradient filter medium with the cone structures enables increase in collision between the fibers and the airflow resulting in increase in the probability of particles being intercepted by the filter components while reducing filtration resistance of the filter material. It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Ishikawa by using the electrospinning method of forming the fibers used in the filter as taught by Yan because Ishikawa teaches the use nanotubes or hollow fibers of the claimed dimensions in the filter and does not prohibit the claimed method of producing the fibers and Yan teaches in [0004], that electrospinning the fibers enables the production of fibers with small fiber diameter, small pore size, improving filtration efficiency and the electrospun nanofiber is more suitable for filtering fine particles.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, and 10-24, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/685,872 (USPGPub. No. 2024/0353750). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/685,872 (USPGPub. No. 2024/0353750) discloses a pellicle that comprises a pellicle frame and a pellicle film provided on the upper surface of the pellicle frame, a vent hole in the pellicle frame that is mounted on an exposure EUV mask, the vent hole is closed by a filter that comprises nanofibers and carbon nanotubes and possesses the claimed filtration accuracy gradient, wherein the nanofibers and carbon nanotubes are produced by electrospinning and thereby fully encompasses claims 1-5, and 10-24 of the instant application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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 August 14, 2026.
Prosecution Insights