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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The applicant should update the specification at page 1 to add the patent number associated with parent application 18/047342
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification as filed only supports the attachment of the pellicle frame on the pattern bearing surface of the mask in areas surrounding the pattern on the mask (see prepub at [0030,0035]), noting that the pellicle (including the membrane) is configures to block foreign pattern from adhering to the mask [0029], facilitating a vacuum which prevents carbon growth on the mask pattern [0041] with the o-ring obviating the need for adhesives which would necessitate cleaning of the mask pattern [0041].
The specification only describe es the check valve as configured to permit gas flow from the interior side of the frame to the outside/exterior portion of the frame while preventing gas flow from the exterior of the frame to the interior of the frame. Please amend claims 1 and 8 accordingly and correct the language of claim 15 which seems to have the direction of the check valve reversed.
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 19 and 20 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 meaning of “a vacuum” in claims 19 and 20 is unclear. It seems that the a single gasket may have sufficient resilience that it at a pressure just below atmospheric pressure (a vacuum) it is not compressed to be entirely within the groove and at a lower pressure (higher vacuum) it is compressed to be entirely within the groove. It seems that “a vacuum” has two different meanings.
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 1,2,6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as fully anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Matsumoto 20070002516
Matsumoto 20070002516 illustrates in figure 5, a container for holding a reflection mask (71) bearing a patterned multilayer film. The mask is held by an electrostatic chuck (310) which includes a valve (113) to relieve the pressure difference between the outside and the interior mask storage space (108). The cover (320) is dust proof which prevents particles form attaching to the mask (71) and includes the seal member (105), which may be an O-ring and is illustrated as provided within a recess. There is a gap between the cover and the chuck (320) adjacent to the seal (105) in the illustration of figure 5. The cover of figure 5 illustrates a joint/port (104) to facilitate the provision of a vacuum in the mask storage space (108). A check valve which allows gas to shift only from the storage space can be provided between the joint (104) and the interior mask storage space (108) or alternatively a externally controllable valve can be provided between the joint (104) in the and the interior mask storage space (108). The cover member (101) can be partially or entirely formed of a transparent material. The mask drop preventor (103) prevents the mask form become detached if the power to the chuck electrode (111) fails or falls below a regulated/necessary value [0085-0092].
PNG
media_image1.png
510
186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
467
363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner holds that the one skilled in the art reading the reference would immediately envision the embodiment of figure 5, where a check valve is placed between the joint (104) and the interior mask storage space (108) as discussed at [0089] as this is one of only two embodiments discussed. With respect to claim 7, at least a portion of the check valve which would include a movable ball, a flexible flap or other moving part to block the flow of gas which would be made of a different material that the rigid pellicle (frame).
If this position is not upheld, the examiner alternatively holds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the embodiment of figure 5 by adding a check valve between the joint (104) and the interior mask storage space (108) as discussed at [0089] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask/pellicle composite. With respect to claim 7, at least a portion of the check valve which would include a movable ball, a flexible flap or other moving part to block the flow of gas which would be made of a different material that the rigid pellicle (frame).
Claims 1-4,6-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto 20070002516, in view of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269
Sugizaki JP 2002252162 (machine translation attached) in figure 1 illustrates a photomask substrate (41) with a reflective mask pattern (47) which has a pellicle (43), which has a groove formed in the lower face of the frame which includes an O-ring. The pellicle can be glass and has a thickness which keeps it undamaged by the application of vacuum between the mask and pellicle [0034-0037]. The vacuum and/or gas replacement is achieved by placing the composite in a vacuum chamber [0038]. In figure 3, the photomask (65,67) is placed on a chuck/pedestal (71) and the cover (73) is seals via the O-ring (75) to the pedestal, rather than the mask itself. This can be used when there is only a small margin area of the substrate (65) around the pattern (67) [0044].
PNG
media_image3.png
188
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
195
306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sato 20020126269 teaches with respect to figure 6, a gas replacement system, where an exhaust system includes a pipe (93) coupled to a valve (93a) and a vacuum pump (95) and on the opposite side of the frame (PF), a gas inlet/supply pipe (94) coupled to a valve (94a) and a gas supply (96). The pellicle membrane (PE) is attached to the pellicle frame (PF) which is attached to the mask (M) [0147-0150].
PNG
media_image5.png
312
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
221
270
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The pellicle PE is adhered to the pattern surface PA of the mask M via a metal frame PF called pellicle frame (or pellicle stand). A transparent thin film of about 1 to 2 mm thick, whose essential component is nitrocellulose or the like is used as the pellicle PE. To well pass the exposure light EL of vacuum ultraviolet rays having a wavelength of 120 nm to 180 nm, a film-like member formed of a crystal material, such as fluorite which is the same material for the mask M and the lens systems, magnesium fluoride or lithium fluoride, may be used as well. Also available as the pellicle (thin film) PE is a quartz glass (fluorine-doped quartz or the like) having a thickness of, for example, about 100 to 300 mm [0061]
Matsumoto 20070002516 does not describe an embodiment where the pellicle frame is sealed/ or in contact with the photomask.
With respect to claims 1,2,6-8 and 11-20, it would have been obvious to modify the embodiments of figure 5 with a check valve between the joint (104) mask storage space exemplified or rendered obvious by Matsumoto 20070002516 by attaching the protective cover/pellicle (101) directly to the mask substrate, rather than to the chuck, based upon this being a known alternative in the art as evidenced in figures 1 and 3 and the associated text of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and adding a gas inlet similar to joint (104) on the opposite side of the frame in a manner similar to the supply line (94) taught with respect to figure 6 of Sato 20020126269. With respect to claims 11,12 and 18, pellicle frames of Matsumoto 20070002516 and Sato 20020126269 are illustrated as rectangles, so the shape of the continuous groove and the gasket is also rectangular. With respect to claim 14, at some point in contacting the pellicle and the mask and applying a vacuum, the spacing between the bottom of the pellicle frame and the mask surface is between 2 and 50 microns as the O-ring/gasket is compressed. With respect to claims 13 and 19-20, the gasket/O-ring illustrated in figure 5 of Matsumoto 20070002516 as having a greater diameter than the depth of the groove and at a pressure slightly below the atmospheric pressure, the gasket/O-ring is only partially compressed. The O-rings in figures 1 and 3 of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 are show as ovals compressed within the groove.
To address the embodiments bounded by the claims where the pellicle membrane is silicon based or quartz (claims 3 and 4).
With respect to claims 1,2,3-4,6-8 and 11-20, it would have been obvious to modify the embodiments of figure 5 with a check valve between the joint (104) mask storage space exemplified or rendered obvious by Matsumoto 20070002516 by attaching the protective cover/pellicle (101) directly to the mask substrate, rather than to the chuck, based upon this being a known alternative in the art as evidenced in figures 1 and 3 and the associated text of Sugizaki JP 2002252162, adding a gas inlet similar to joint (104) on the opposite side of the frame in a manner similar to the supply line (94) taught with respect to figure 6 of Sato 20020126269 and forming the cover or pellicle membrane from glass or quartz glass (which is silicon dioxide) as taught at [0036] of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and [0061] of Sato 20020126269 with a reasonable expectation ofg forming a useful mask/pellicle . With respect to claims 11,12 and 18, pellicle frames of Matsumoto 20070002516 and Sato 20020126269 are illustrated as rectangles, so the shape of the continuous groove and the gasket is also rectangular. With respect to claim 14, at some point in contacting the pellicle and the mask and applying a vacuum, the spacing between the bottom of the pellicle frame and the mask surface is between 2 and 50 microns as the O-ring/gasket is compressed. With respect to claims 13 and 19-20, the gasket/O-ring illustrated in figure 5 of Matsumoto 20070002516 as having a greater diameter than the depth of the groove and at a pressure slightly below the atmospheric pressure, the gasket/O-ring is only partially compressed. The O-rings in figures 1 and 3 of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 are show as ovals compressed within the groove.
Claims 1-4,6-8, 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto 20070002516, in view of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269, further in view of Shibazaki et al. 20100297562, Danberg et al. 20050083496 or Breninger et al. 20040156049
Shibazaki et al. 20100297562 teaches the use of a ball type check valves in photolithography to the flow of gas to a holding chuck at [0242)
Danberg et al. 20050083496 teaches the use of ball check valves to prevent only one way gas flow, and prevent “wrong way” gas flow” [0057]
Breninger et al. 20040156049 teaches the use of a one-way flap or check valve to prevent exhausted gas from returning from the vent to the chamber of the sample module 106[0040]
With respect to the embodiments of the claims including the limitation of claim 9, in addition to the basis above, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mask/pellicle embodiments rendered obvious by the combination of Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 by using one way or check valves known in the photolithographic arts, such as the ball or flap check valves disclosed by Shibazaki et al. 20100297562, Danberg et al. 20050083496 or Breninger et al. 20040156049 as the check valve between the joint (104) and the interior volume (108) with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-4,6-8, 10 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto 20070002516, in view of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269, further in view of Okada et al. JP 2001133961.
Okada et al. JP 2001133961 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 1, a mask substrate (5) with a pellicle frame (3) with a transparent plate (4) attached. And the pellicle plate 4 form a pellicle structure. The pellicle plate 4 may be, for example, an organic resin such as a fluorine-based resin having a ring structure in the main chain or a synthetic quartz glass, but a synthetic quartz glass having high durability against ultraviolet rays is preferable for the F .sub.2 laser. The pellicle structure is used by being attached to a mask 5 with an adhesive or the like [0009]. The pellicle has a gas inlet (1) and a gas outlet (2) [0010]. Figure 2 shows the gas inlet (1) provided with a check valve (8) [0028].
PNG
media_image7.png
228
284
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
142
199
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The combination of Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 does not teach embodiments bounded by the claims where a second check valve is present (claim 10).
With respect to the embodiments of the claims including the limitation of claim 10, in addition to the basis above, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the mask/pellicle embodiments rendered obvious by the combination of Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 by adding a check valve to the inlet port as taught by Okada et al. JP 2001133961 to prevent the gas backflow between the interior space (108) and the outlet joint as taught by Matsumoto 20070002516 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle/mask composite
Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6-8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto 20070002516, in view of Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269, further in view of Nagasaka JP WO2003034475.
Nagasaka JP WO2003034475 (machine translation attached) illustrates in figure 6, a double pellicle attached to a mask (M), where the second pellicle frame (PF2) has a groove (400) formed in the end face (C3) and an o-ring (401) placed in it to make a seal with the first pellicle frame (PF1). Further, a groove and O-ring can be formed in the first pellicle frame (PF1) (page 15, first full paragraph)
PNG
media_image9.png
256
415
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
447
239
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
576
393
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figures 11 and 12 illustrate a mask (M) and double pellicle (PF1, PF2) where the pellicles have pipes (308A/308B) which are coupled to the pellicle frames. The pipes can either supply gas or provide a vacuum (page 17/~line 13 to page 19/~line 37)The pellicle membrane (PE) can be 1-2 microns of nitrocellulose or a fluororesin (page 9). The plate-like member B is made of a material such as metal, synthetic resin, glass, or the like that hardly allows gas to pass through (a material having a gas passage amount per unit time of a predetermined value or less) (page 9).
The combination of Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 does not teach embodiments bounded by the claims where the pellicle films are resins, nitrocellulose, fluororesins or the pellicle films are 2-7 microns thick.
In addition to the basis provided above, it would have been obvious to modify the embodiments bounded by Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 by adding a second pellicle and frame having gas inlets and outlets as taught by Nagasaka JP WO2003034475 with check valves in the gas outlets as taught by Matsumoto 20070002516, and the gas impermeability of the hard pellicle film (B) also disclosed in Matsumoto 20070002516, Sugizaki JP 2002252162 and Sato 20020126269 protects a thinner 2-7 microns thick nitrocellulose or fluororesin pellicle film (PE) from the pressure variation which could cause it to break as taught in Nagasaka JP WO2003034475, noting that Nagasaka JP WO2003034475 teaches that the groove and membrane can be formed in the first pellicle frame.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11506971. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 12 of 11506971 recites the pellicle frame with a pellicle membrane mounted on it where the frame has a ball check valve and gasket is oriented in the single groove formed on the bottom surface of the frame.
Claim 13 add a mask bearing a pattern and that the pellicle is secured to the mask.
Claim 18 recites that the pellicle frame is spaced from the mask.
Claim 1 recites the frame and the gasket provided in the single groove on the bottom surface of the frame and check valve being oriented to allow the flow of gas from the interior to the exterior of the frame.
Claim 7 addresses the materials of the check valve,
Claims 2 and 3 address the materials and thickness of the pellicle membrane.
Claim 10 recites that the gasket is larger than the recess.
The ball check valve recited in the embodiment of claims 12 and 13 is a type of check valve, but there are other types of check valves bounded by the scope of the claims of the instant application, so the claims are obvious variants as the scope of the two sets of claims is not coextensive. Claim 1 recites the directionality of the check valve. Claims 18 and 10 address the limitations of the spacing between the mask and the frame. And claim 11 describes the cross-sectional shape of the gasket. Claims 2 and 3 address the thickness and materials of the membrane
Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10670959. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 of 10670959 describes a pellicle including g a pellicle membrane and a frame with a single groove along a bottom edge provided with a gasket and a check valve within the thickness of the frame which permits the flow of gas from the interior of the frame to the exterior of the frame.
Claim 4 recites a plurality of check valves
Claim 5 recites that the depth of the groove is less than the thickness of the gasket.
Claim 6 recites a process of removing the pellicle where it is initially mounted on the face of a photomask bearing a pattern and the frame surrounds the pattern.
Claim 14 recites a process of attaching the pellicle where it is placed in contact with the face of a photomask bearing a pattern so that the frame surrounds the pattern and a vacuum is applied.
Claim 1 does not recite a mask attached to the pellicle frame, although claims 6 and 14 of this patent clearly describe the attachment of the pellicle such that the frame surround the pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recited pellicle of claims 1-5 by attaching it to a mask via the surface provided with the gasket so that the frame surrounds the pattern based upon the language of claims 6 and 14. Further claims 4 and 5 address the limitations of dependent claims of the instant application
Claims 1 and 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11868041. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 of 11868041 describes a pellicle including g a pellicle membrane and a frame with a single groove along a bottom edge provided with a gasket and a check valve within the thickness of the frame which permits the flow of gas from the interior of the frame to the exterior of the frame.
Claim 7 recites that the gasket is larger than the depth of the groove.
Claim 8 addresses the shape of the pellicle frame.
Claim 14 recites a process of removing the pellicle where it is initially mounted on the face of a photomask bearing a pattern and the frame surrounds the pattern.
Claim 9 recites a process of attaching the pellicle where it is placed in contact with the face of a photomask bearing a pattern so that the frame surrounds the pattern and a vacuum is applied.
Claim 1 does not recite a mask attached to the pellicle frame, although claims 6 and 14 of this patent clearly describe the attachment of the pellicle such that the frame surround the pattern. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the recited pellicle of claims 1-5 by attaching it to a mask via the surface provided with the gasket so that the frame surrounds the pattern based upon the language of claims 9 and 14. Further claim 7 and 8 address the limitations of dependent claims of the instant application
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10670959, in view of Sekihara JP 2015081968 or Sato 20020126269.
Sekihara JP 2015081968 (machine translation attached) the use of pellicle film (18) of a cellulose resin, a fluorine resin, or the like having a thickness of 2 to 10 μm [0028]
Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10670959 do not recite the particular pellicle membrane materials or their thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to modify claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10670959 by using known pellicle materials such as the silicon containing quartz taught by Sato 20020126269 or the 2-10 microns thicknesses fluororesin or nitrocellulose of Sekihara JP 2015081968 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask/pellicle composite.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11868041, in view of Sekihara JP 2015081968
Sekihara JP 2015081968 (machine translation attached) the use of pellicle film (18) of a cellulose resin, a fluorine resin, or the like having a thickness of 2 to 10 μm [0028]
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11868041 do not describe the particular pellicle membrane materials or their thicknesses.
It would have been obvious to modify claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11868041 by using known pellicle materials such as the silicon containing quartz taught by Sato 20020126269 or the 2-10 microns thicknesses fluororesin or nitrocellulose of Sekihara JP 2015081968 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful mask/pellicle composite.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. 20090029268 illustrates in figure 5 a pellicle/mask composite where the rubber/stress absorbing features does not fill the entire recess. Figure 9 illustrates a pellicle/mask composite where the rubber/stress absorber is larger than the groove [0020]
PNG
media_image12.png
553
163
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
612
179
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Chang et al. 20080199783 teaches with respect to figures 16 and 17, a hard pellicle (104) attached to a photomask (100), having a transparent substrate (101) and absorber mask pattern (102) via an “H” shaped frame (106) having a groove (106a) in the upper face and the lower face and the ring of gasket/sealing material (107) in each of these grooves [0041].
PNG
media_image14.png
273
264
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
176
285
media_image15.png
Greyscale
These are held together by a vacuum provided by assembling the pellicle/mask composite in a vacuum chamber and then removing the composite so that the pressure from outside the composite presses them together with the sealing rings preserving the integrity of the vacuum [0042].
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 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights