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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 5-6 is acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 1-3, filed 23 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 US 20210171341 A1 (hereby referred to as Mikladal) in view of US 20230183071 A1 (hereby referred to a Kalita).
Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to recite the thickness of the free-standing film of carbon nanostructures is more than 50 nm and up to and including 8000 nm. Claim 1 has further been amended to recite that the parylene coating has a thickness of 35-200 nm. Claims 13 and 14 have been amended to include the same limitations. Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art (namely, Gallagher, Riikonen, and Hsu) fails to render obvious the invention of claims 1, 13, and/or 14, as Gallagher teaches a pellicle membrane having a thickness of 5-50 nm and a coating thickness on the pellicle membrane of 1 to 30 nm. Therefore, Applicant argues, Gallagher fails to suggest the ranges recited by claims 1, 13, and/or 14. Upon review of the prior art, Applicant’s arguments are found to be persuasive in this regard and therefore the previous rejection is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented in view of US 20210171341 A1 (hereby referred to as Mikladal) in view of US 20230183071 A1 (hereby referred to a Kalita), as explained below.
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, 7-8, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210171341 A1 (hereby referred to as Mikladal) in view of US 20230183071 A1 (hereby referred to a Kalita.
Regarding Claims 1-4, Mikladal discloses apparatuses comprising films with free-standing regions. The apparatus comprises a film that includes a network of conductive or semi-conductive structures that is attached to a frame (Mikladal, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1a). The frame supports the film, and a free-standing region of the film extends between the frame support positions (Mikladal, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1a). The film comprises a HARM-structure, which is selected from the group of carbon nanotubes, carbon nanobuds, graphene, and carbon fibers (Mikladal, paragraph 0020). The film has a thickness between 1 nm and 10 μm (Mikladal, paragraph 0021), which is equivalent to 1 nm to 10,000 nm. The film thickness range disclosed by Mikladal overlaps the film thickness range recited by instant claim 1. Refer to MPEP 2144.05 I. The film may have a coating, such as a polymer coating (Mikladal, paragraph 0033).
However, Mikladal is silent in regards to the film having a parylene coating having a thickness between 35 to 200 nm. Kalita teaches a method of forming a polymer material on a graphene film. Kalita teaches that a graphene film (e.g. a carbon nanostructure) is provided with a coating layer of a polymer material (Kalita, paragraph 0037 and Fig. 1). The polymer material is from the family of xylylenes, such as parylene (Kalita, paragraph 0037). The parylene may be parylene C (chlorinated parylene) or parylene N (unsubstituted parylene) (Kalita, paragraph 0037). The thickness of the polymer layer is chosen based on the application, but for example may have a thickness between 5 to 40 nm (Kalita, paragraph 0038). The coating thickness range taught by Kalita overlaps the coating thickness range according to instant claim 1. Refer to MPEP 2144.05 I. As shown in Fig. 1 of Kalita, the parylene coating is applied to only one side of the graphene film. However, the graphene layer may be sandwiched by parylene layers on each side of the graphene layer (Kalita, paragraph 0040). Thus, Kalita suggests the coating configurations of instant claims 3 and 4.
Mikladal and Kalita are analogous art because both references pertain to coated carbon nanostructure films. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to apply a parylene coating having a thickness of 5 to 40 nm, as taught by Kalita, as the coating for the free-standing film disclosed by Mikladal because a parylene coating having such a thickness yields a film structure having high electrical conductance that remains flexible and strong (Kalita, paragraph 0040).
Regarding Claim 7, Mikladal discloses that the film is supported by a frame (Mikladal, paragraph 0048). The support may be a polymeric material, such as PET (Mikladal, paragraph 0062).
Regarding Claim 8, Mikladal discloses an embodiment wherein a carbon nanobud film is used having a film size of 30 mm by 33 mm (Mikladal, paragraph 0061). These dimensions are equal to 3 cm by 3.3 cm. The area of the film is thus 9.9 cm2 (3 cm * 3.3 cm = 9.9 cm2).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Mikladal discloses that the film can be used in pellicles for photomasks (Mikladal, paragraph 0027). The film may also be used as debris filter (Mikladal, paragraph 0063) or in a chemical sensor (Mikladal, paragraph 0066).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210171341 A1 (hereby referred to as Mikladal) in view of US 20230183071 A1 (hereby referred to a Kalita) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20240094626 A1 (hereby referred to as Hsu).
Regarding Claims 9-11 and 19, the combination of Mikladal and Kalita renders obvious the parylene-coated carbon nanostructure film of instant claim 1, as explained above. Mikladal discloses that the coating layer may be a polymer, a metal, or a metal oxide coating (Mikladal, paragraph 0033). Mikladal further discloses that the film may be used as a pellicle for lithography (Mikladal, paragraph 0025-0027). However, Mikladal and Kalita are silent in regards to a metal-based coating provided on the parylene coating or between the parylene coating and the carbon nanostructures. Mikladal and Kalita are further silent in regards to the use of the film as a pellicle for EUV photolithography.
Hsu teaches a pellicle for EUV lithography masks and methods of manufacturing the same. The pellicle membrane comprises a plurality of nanotubes covered by one or more cover layers (Hsu, paragraph 0033). The nanotubes may be carbon nanotubes (Hsu, paragraph 0032-0035), which makes the membrane of Hsu analogous to the films disclosed by Mikladal and Kalita, as well as the instant application’s film. The nanotubes are coated, wherein the first coating layer may include one or metal elements and silicon (Hsu, paragraph 0055). A second coating layer is formed over the first coating layer, and the second coating layer is made of a material that prevents the oxidation of the first coating layer (Hsu, paragraph 0058). The second coating layer may also contain metal-based materials (Hsu, paragraph 0058). The thickness of the first coating layer is in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm (Hsu, paragraph 0057) and the thickness of the second coating layer is in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm (Hsu, paragraph 0058).
Mikladal, Kalita, and Hsu are analogous art because each reference pertains to carbon nanostructure films having coatings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to apply a coating comprising a metal-based material, as taught by Hsu, either between the parylene coating and the carbon nanostructure or over the parylene coating layer because the inclusion of the metal-based coating, when disposed over the parylene coating, prevents the layers underneath the metal-based coating from oxidizing (Hsu, paragraph 0058). On the other hand, including the metal-based coating between the carbon nanostructures and the parylene coating prevents the carbon nanostructures from being damaged by EUV radiation whilst still offering adequate EUV radiation transmission (Hsu, paragraph 0055). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the film obtained by combining the teachings of Mikladal, Kalita, and Hsu as a pellicle for EUV lithography because carbon nanostructures, such as nanotubes and the like, demonstrate high EUV transmittance of more than 96.5% and provide long life spans in the EUV lithography environment (Hsu, paragraph 0032).
Claim(s) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210171341 A1 (hereby referred to as Mikladal) in view of US 20230183071 A1 (hereby referred to a Kalita) and US 20240094626 A1 (hereby referred to as Hsu).
Regarding Claims 13-17, Mikladal discloses apparatuses comprising films with free-standing regions. The apparatus comprises a film that includes a network of conductive or semi-conductive structures that is attached to a frame (Mikladal, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1a). The frame supports the film, and a free-standing region of the film extends between the frame support positions (Mikladal, paragraph 0048 and Fig. 1a). The film comprises a HARM-structure, which is selected from the group of carbon nanotubes, carbon nanobuds, graphene, and carbon fibers (Mikladal, paragraph 0020). The film has a thickness between 1 nm and 10 μm (Mikladal, paragraph 0021), which is equivalent to 1 nm to 10,000 nm. The film thickness range disclosed by Mikladal overlaps the film thickness range recited by instant claim 1. Refer to MPEP 2144.05 I. The film may have a coating, such as a polymer coating (Mikladal, paragraph 0033).
However, Mikladal is silent in regards to the film having a parylene coating having a thickness between 35 to 200 nm. Kalita teaches a method of forming a polymer material on a graphene film. Kalita teaches that a graphene film (e.g. a carbon nanostructure) is provided with a coating layer of a polymer material (Kalita, paragraph 0037 and Fig. 1). The polymer material is from the family of xylylenes, such as parylene (Kalita, paragraph 0037). The parylene may be parylene C (chlorinated parylene) or parylene N (unsubstituted parylene) (Kalita, paragraph 0037). The thickness of the polymer layer is chosen based on the application, but for example may have a thickness between 5 to 40 nm (Kalita, paragraph 0038). The coating thickness range taught by Kalita overlaps the coating thickness range according to instant claim 1. Refer to MPEP 2144.05 I. The parylene coating may be formed by a gas phase deposition technique (Kalita, paragraph 0038).
However, neither Mikladal nor Kalita teaches a second coating layer provided on the parylene coating or between the parylene coating and the carbon nanostructures. Hsu teaches a pellicle for EUV lithography masks and methods of manufacturing the same. The pellicle membrane comprises a plurality of nanotubes covered by one or more cover layers (Hsu, paragraph 0033). The nanotubes may be carbon nanotubes (Hsu, paragraph 0032-0035), which makes the membrane of Hsu analogous to both the films disclosed by Mikladal and Kalita, as well as the instant application’s film. The nanotubes are coated, wherein the first coating layer may include one or metal elements and silicon (Hsu, paragraph 0055). A second coating layer is formed over the first coating layer, and the second coating layer is made of a material that prevents the oxidation of the first coating layer (Hsu, paragraph 0058). The second coating layer may also contain metal-based materials (Hsu, paragraph 0058). The thickness of the first coating layer is in the range of 2 nm to 20 nm (Hsu, paragraph 0057) and the thickness of the second coating layer is in the range of 2 nm to 10 nm (Hsu, paragraph 0058).
Mikladal, Kalita, and Hsu are analogous art because each reference pertains to carbon nanostructure films having coatings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to apply a parylene coating having a thickness of 5 to 40 nm, as taught by Kalita, as the coating for the free-standing film disclosed by Mikladal because a parylene coating having such a thickness yields a film structure having high electrical conductance that remains flexible and strong (Kalita, paragraph 0040). Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to apply a second coating comprising a metal-based material, as taught by Hsu, either between the parylene coating and the carbon nanostructure or over the parylene coating layer because the inclusion of the metal-based coating, when disposed over the parylene coating, prevents the layers underneath the metal-based coating from oxidizing (Hsu, paragraph 0058). On the other hand, including the metal-based coating between the carbon nanostructures and the parylene coating prevents the carbon nanostructures from being damaged by EUV radiation whilst still offering adequate EUV radiation transmission (Hsu, paragraph 0055). Furthermore, Mikladal teaches that the freestanding film functions as a gas filter, suggesting functionality for reducing gas permeability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737
/JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights