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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 9, 2025 and October 14, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are examined.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to claim 1 overcome the previous U.S.C. 112 (a) rejection of claim 1; therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
The amendments made to the claims do not overcome the remaining previous U.S.C. 101, 112 (a), and 103 rejections. See rejections below and new U.S.C. 112 (b) rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1, line 10-11 - “a film thickness” should read “the film thickness” to recite to “film thickness” in line 8-9
claim 3, line 2 – “step” after “the step of acquiring the measurement information” should be deleted for clarity
claim 3, line 3 – “in-plane distribution” should read “the in-plane distribution” to recite to “in-plane distribution” in claim 1, line 8
claim 4, line 2 – “information” should read “the acquired measurement information” to recite to “acquiring measurement information” in claim 1
claim 5, line 2 – “an application condition” after “the base layer is” should be deleted for clarity
claim 5, line 3-4 – “shearing force in-plane distribution” should read “in-plane distribution of shearing force” for clarity and for the recitation of “the in-plane distribution of shearing force” in the last line
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
STEP 1: TWO CRITERIA FOR SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
The claims fall into the category of a machine comprising a computer system.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
STEP 2A: TWO PRONGS
PRONG 1: RECITES ABSTRACT IDEA, LAW OF NATURE, NATURAL PHENOMENON
Claim 1-10 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
“controlling an application condition of the base layer so that a film thickness of the base layer changes by a predetermined amount in response to the measuring information”
“controlling a detection condition for alignment detection through the base layer so that the alignment detection is improved, by adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light based on the measurement information”
The limitation of “controlling an application condition” and “controlling a detection condition,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a controller configured to,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “controller configured to” language,:
“controlling an application condition” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the measurement information to change in the base layer by a predetermined amount
“controlling a detection condition” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the measurement information to change a wavelength or intensity of alignment light.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
PRONG 2: DOES NOT INTEGRATE INTO PRACTICAL APPLICATION
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a controller configured to perform the “controlling an application condition” and “controlling a detection condition” steps. The controller in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic controller performing a generic computer function of “controlling an application condition” and “controlling a detection condition”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B: DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller configured to perform “controlling an application condition” and “controlling a detection condition”) steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
claim 2 further defines the step of acquiring measurement information, but the additional limitations merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity. See § 2106.05(g).
claim 3 further defines the step of acquiring measurement information, but the additional limitations merely recite insignificant pre-solution activity
claim 3-4 and 6 recite:
“the application condition of the base layer is determined” in claim 3,
“determining the application condition” in claim 4, and
“the application condition is determined” in claim 6,
which introduces an additional abstract idea of “determine” as it is process that can be performed by the human mind; for example, determining the application condition of the base layer encompasses a user evaluating:
the in-plane distribution of shearing force measurement in claim 3,
the film thickness in claim 4, and
in response to an increase in shearing force generated in a peripheral direction from a center of the substrate to come to a conclusion on the application condition in claim 6
Therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea and does not further integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract ideas
claim 5 further defines the application condition, but does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract idea
claim 7 further adds detecting a position shift, but does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 7 recites “the wavelength and the light intensity of alignment light are determined”, which introduces an additional abstract idea of “determine” as it is process that can be performed by the human mind
For example, determining wavelength and light intensity in the context of the claim encompasses a user evaluating the application condition of the base layer and manually changing wavelength and light intensity based on the application condition; therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea and does not further integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract ideas
claim 8 further adds detecting a particle on the base layer, but does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites “particle detection sensitivity in the detecting is controlled so that the particle condition is improved based on the application condition of the base layer”, which introduces an additional abstract idea of “control” as it is process that can be performed by the human mind
For example, controlling the particle detection sensitivity in the context of the claim encompasses a user evaluating the application condition of the base layer and manually changing the particle detection sensitivity based on the application condition; therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea and does not further integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract ideas
claim 9 further defines the mold, but does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or recite significantly more than the abstract idea
claim 10 further adds processing the substrate and manufacturing an article, but the additional limitations merely recite insignificant post-solution activity
As claims 2-10 ultimately depend on claim 1, claims 2-10 are rejected for being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites “detecting is controlled so that the particle detection is improved” and instant spec. The instant specification in ¶ [0077-0078] discloses reducing noise level while preventing the mold from being destroyed by particles by increasing and decreasing acceptable particle size in the particle detection apparatus in response to a detection error. However, the instant specification is more specific/narrow than the recitation of claim 8 (“particle detection is improved”) which has not been described in the instant specification in a reasonable way.
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.
Claim 2-3, 5 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.
Claim 2 recites “the shearing force generated” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The element of “shearing force” is a newly introduced limitation and is not previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “shearing force generated”.
Claim 3 recites “the determining step, the application condition of the base layer is determined” in line 4. It is unclear what “the determining step” is reciting to, as the step of “determining” is not previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as introducing “a determining step” for the “application condition” to the method.
Claim 3 recites “the shearing force in-plane distribution” in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The element of “shearing force in-plane distribution” is a newly introduced limitation and is not previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “an in-plane distribution of shearing force”, as “the in-plane distribution of shearing force” is recited in the last line.
Claim 5 recites “the distribution of the shearing force” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The element of “distribution of shearing force” is a newly introduced limitation and is not previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “distribution of shearing force”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Izawa (US 20180218951 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Izawa discloses a molding method (¶ [0022] - pattern formation method) for placing a curable composition (¶ [0025] - imprint material 4) on a substrate (¶ [0024] - semiconductor layer 1) including a base layer (¶ [0024] - insulation layer 3) on a surface of the substrate (¶ [0024] – semi-conductor layer 1) and obtaining a cured product (¶ [0028] - imprint pattern 6) molded on the substrate using a mold (¶ [0027-0028] - template 5), the molding method comprising:
making position adjustment between the mold (5) and the substrate (1) in a state where the mold (5) and the base layer (3) of the substrate (1) are in contact with the curable composition (4) (¶ [0028] – after 5 is pressed against 4 on 1, 5 is separated from 4; and thus a position adjustment occurs);
acquiring measurement information (¶ [0033] - 3 having the etching pattern 3’ formed; ¶ [0039] - measured residual layer thickness of 6 and width of 3’) of in-plane distribution of a film thickness of the base layer (3) (¶ [0033] - 3 having the etching pattern 3’ formed) and
controlling an application condition of the base layer (annotated Fig. 2A1-2A5 and Figs. 2B1-2B5 depict thickness distribution of 3) so that a film thickness of the base layer changes (¶ [0036] - when a difference between width A1 and width B1 does not fall within a prescribed range, a drop recipe of 4 can be changed; ¶ [0038] – widths of 3’ can be determined respectively corresponding to the residual film thickness) by a predetermined amount (¶ [0038] – change rate of width expressed linearly based on the assumption [predetermine] that the change rate of the width with respect to residual film thickness is uniform) in response to the measurement information (¶ [0039] – measured residual film thickness of 6 and width of 3’; annotated Fig. 2A1-2A5 and Figs. 2B1-2B5 depict that the thickness distribution of 3 changes/is controlled during etching)
PNG
media_image1.png
821
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Izawa Annotated Figs. 2A1-2A5 and Figs. 2B1-2B5
Regarding claim 4, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1. Izawa further discloses wherein in determining the application condition (annotated Figs. 2A1-2A5 and Figs. 2B1-2B5 depict thickness distribution of the 3), information ([0039] - the measured widths and residual layer thickness) about the film thickness of the base layer (3) is fed back to the application condition of the base layer (3) (¶ [0038] - change the drop recipe; which changes the thickness distribution of the insulation layer 3; Fig. 3A1-3A5 and 3B1-3B5 depict said change in thickness distribution, as the residual film thickness is 6B’ which is larger than 6B; therefore, the width and residual layer thickness information is fed back and changes the thickness distribution, see annotated Fig. 2B5 and 3B5 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
334
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Izawa annotated Fig. 2B5 and 3B5
Regarding claim 9, Izawa discloses an imprint method (¶ [0027-0028] – 5 is pressed against 4) including the molding method according to claim 1 (see above). Izawa further discloses:
wherein the mold (5) includes an uneven pattern (¶ [0027] – 5 has recessed portions 5A) on a surface of the mold (5) (Fig. 1B), and
wherein the mold (5) is for forming on the substrate (1) a cured product onto which the uneven pattern (5A) of the mold (5) is transferred (¶ [0027-0028] – 4 is irradiated with ultraviolet rays to cure 4, form 6 on 3; Fig. 1B depicts 5A is transferred to 4 forming 6).
Regarding claim 10, Izawa discloses a method for manufacturing an article (¶ [0022] - pattern formation method), the method comprising:
forming a pattern on the substrate (1) using the imprint method according to claim 9 (¶ [0027-0028] and Fig. 1B, see above); and
processing the substrate (1) on which the pattern (imprint pattern 6) is formed in the forming (¶ [0029] - etching after 6 is formed),
wherein an article (Fig. 2A5) including at least a part of the processed substrate (1) is manufactured (¶ [0029] - Fig. 2A5 illustrates formation of 3’; Fig. 1B and 1D depicts 3 on 2 and 1, where 3 becomes 3’ after etching).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa (US 20180218951 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Okamoto (US 20150251350 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Izawa further discloses the measured value are obtained from a plurality of areas on the substrate (¶ [0039-0040] - measurements are for each area in the residual film thickness of 6 and a plurality of samples assigned with different residual film thicknesses of 6 may be prepared).
However, Izawa does not disclose the step of acquiring … is acquiring a distribution of measured values of the shearing force generated in the curable composition placed on the base layer.
Analogous art Okamoto discloses an imprint device and pattern forming method (¶ [0002]). A pattern portion 100a is pressed onto a transfer portion 111 provided on a substrate 110 (¶ [0022]).
Okamoto further discloses acquiring a distribution of measured values of the shearing force generated (¶ [0054] – residual film thickness dimension calculated by seeking a shear force of transfer portion 111 based on an output from a detecting portion 6b; ¶ [0083] – residual film thickness dimension T made by shear force) in the curable composition (¶ [0027] – 111 provided on 110) placed on the base layer (¶ [0026] – 111 includes an ultraviolet curing resin).
Izawa and Okamoto disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the residual film thickness measured using measurements of shear force in Okamoto to the measurement of thickness in each area in Izawa to obtain a relationship between the shear force of 111 and residual film thickness dimension to arise (¶ [0085]). Furthermore, as calculating residual film thickness from shear force is a known method in the art, it would yield the predictable result of obtaining residual film thickness measurements, see MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 3, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Izawa further discloses said measurements are for each area in the residual film thickness of 6 and a plurality of samples assigned with different residual film thicknesses of 6 may be prepared (¶ [0039-0040]), which is analogous to a distribution.
However, Izawa does not disclose the step of acquiring … is acquiring in-plane distribution of the film thickness of the base layer by measuring the shearing force in-plane distribution, and in the determining step, the application condition of the base layer is determined based on a result of measuring the in-plane distribution of shearing force.
Analogous art Okamoto discloses an imprint device and pattern forming method (¶ [0002]).
Okamoto further discloses acquiring in-plane distribution of the film thickness of the base layer by measuring the shearing force in-plane distribution (¶ [0054] – residual film thickness dimension calculated by seeking a shear force of transfer portion 111), and in the determining step, the application condition of the base layer is determined (¶ [0080] – residual film thickness dimension changes) based on a result of measuring the in-plane distribution of shearing force (¶ [0054] – based on an output from a detecting portion 6b).
Izawa and Okamoto disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the residual film thickness measured using measurements of shear force in Okamoto to the measurement of thickness in each area in Izawa to obtain a relationship between the shear force of 111 and residual film thickness dimension to arise (¶ [0085]). Furthermore, as calculating residual film thickness from shear force is a known method in the art, it would yield the predictable result of obtaining residual film thickness measurements, see MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa (US 20180218951 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ahn (US 20140314897 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Izawa further teaches obtaining an application condition (annotated Fig. 2A1-2A5 and Figs. 2B1-2B5 - thickness distribution of the insulation layer 3) of a base layer (3) through changing the film thickness of the base layer (¶ [0039-0041] - the measured widths and residual layer thickness are used to change the drop recipe which changes the thickness distribution of the insulation layer 3; ¶ [0036] - larger residual thicknesses such as 6B correlate to an increase in the width of the etching pattern in the cell region R3, wherein said width is depicted to increase from B1 to A1)
Izawa does not disclose the application condition is obtained … such that there is a difference in height in a distribution of shearing forces between a plurality of areas on a substrate falls withing a predetermined range.
Analogous art Ahn discloses an imprint method (Abstract).
Ahn further discloses such that there is a difference in height in a distribution of shearing forces between a plurality of areas on a substrate falls withing a predetermined range (¶ [0031] - thickness [height] increases towards an optimal condition, a separation force will drop; and as thickness [height] increase away from an optimal thickness, separation forces increase). An optimal thickness of a coating can be determined using a shear force which corresponds to a separation force (¶ [0041]).
It is well established that determination of optimum values result effective variables (in this case the effect of shearing force on thickness) is within the skill of one practicing in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Izawa and Ahn disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the determination of optimal condition/thickness by adjusting shearing force in Ahn to the change in drop recipe affecting thickness distribution in Izawa to have a desired separation force (¶ [0041]).
Furthermore, as calculating residual film thickness from shear force is a known method in the art, it would yield the predictable result of obtaining residual film thickness measurements, see MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 6, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Izawa does not disclose the application condition is determined such that the film thickness of the base layer increases in response to an increase in the shearing force generated in a peripheral direction from a center of the substrate.
Analogous art Ahn discloses an imprint method (Abstract).
Ahn further discloses the application condition (¶ [0031] – thickness) is determined such that the film thickness of the base layer increases in response to an increase in the shearing force generated in a peripheral direction from a center of the substrate (¶ [0031] - thickness increases towards an optimal condition, a separation force will drop; and as thickness increase away from an optimal thickness, separation forces increase). An optimal thickness of a coating can be determined using a shear force which corresponds to a separation force (¶ [0041]). Ahn teaches the thickness of an adhesive layer can affect shear force as there is a control with an adhesive layer and a control without an adhesive layer; therefore, Ahn teaches shearing force and thickness of the adhesive layer are result-effective variable for determining thickness of a coating thereon, such as the AuPd layer.
It is well established that determination of optimum values results effective variables (in this case the effect of shearing force and adhesive layer thickness on the thickness of a coating) is within the skill of one practicing in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Izawa and Ahn disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the determination of optimal condition/thickness by adjusting shearing force in Ahn to the change in drop recipe affecting thickness distribution in Izawa to optimize the residual film thickness and separation force (¶ [0041]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa (US 20180218951 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Minoda (US 20120328725 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1 in regards to “controlling an application condition”. Izawa further discloses the residual film thickness of 6 can be determined by actual measurement using an ellipsometer, a scatterometry, or the like (¶ [0039]).
Izawa does not disclose:
controlling a detection condition for alignment detection though the base layer so that the alignment detection is improved, by adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light based on the measurement information (the alternative from claim 1), and
detecting a positional shift between the substrate and the mold, wherein the wavelength and the light intensity of alignment light are determined based on the application condition of the base layer.
Analogous art Minoda discloses a position detection method for an imprint apparatus (¶ [0002], [0086]).
Minoda further discloses:
controlling a detection condition for alignment detection though the base layer so that the alignment detection is improved (¶ [0087] – enabling visibility of the alignment mark), by adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light (¶ [0087] - an intensity of light reflected from an alignment mark becomes occasionally weak according to a wavelength of an illumination light due to thin film interference) based on the measurement information (¶ [0086-0087] – position detection)
detecting a positional shift between the substrate and the mold (¶ [0086-0087] – position detection), wherein the wavelength and the light intensity of alignment light are determined (¶ [0087] – if the wavelength of the illumination light is changed, the light deviates from the thin film interference condition) based on the application condition of the base layer (¶ [0087] – layer consisting of a transparent material formed on 11, light reflected would be affected by thin film interference).
Izawa and Minoda disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied change in intensity of light and wavelength to affect thin film interference in Minoda to the in change thickness distribution in Izawa to enable visibility of the mark for position detection (¶ [0086-0087]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa (US 20180218951 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Sato (US 20120141659 A1) and Minoda (US 20120328725 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Izawa discloses the molding method according to claim 1. Izawa further discloses the residual film thickness of 6 can be determined by actual measurement using a scatterometry, or the like (¶ [0039]), which would detect particles.
Izawa does not explicitly disclose detecting a particle on a base layer by emitting light to the substrate.
Analogous art Sato discloses an imprint apparatus (Abstract) and a photo-curing method (¶ [0029]).
Sato further discloses detecting a particle on a base layer by emitting light to the substrate (¶ [0034-0036] - a particle inspection unit 8 that uses light to detect particles). Upon detection the imprinting process is stopped and the particle is removed (¶ [0039]). Thus the imprint area may be efficiently detected while limiting a reduction in productivity (¶ [0041]).
Izawa and Sato disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the particle inspection unit that uses light to detect particles in Sato efficiently detected the imprint area while limiting a reduction in productivity (¶ [0041]).
Izawa does not disclose wherein a particle detection sensitivity in the detecting is controlled so that the particle detection is improved based on the application of the base layer.
Analogous art Minoda discloses a position detection method for an imprint apparatus (¶ [0002], [0086]).
Minoda further discloses a particle detection sensitivity in the detecting is controlled (¶ [0087] - an intensity of light reflected from an alignment mark becomes occasionally weak according to a wavelength of an illumination light due to thin film interference; if the wavelength of the illumination light is changed, the light deviates from the thin film interference condition) so that the particle detection is improved (¶ [0087] – enabling visibility of the alignment mark) based on the application of the base layer (¶ [0087] – layer consisting of a transparent material formed on 11, light reflected would affected by thin film interference).
Izawa and Minoda disclose methods with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function in regards to imprinting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied change in intensity of light and wavelength to affect thin film interference in Minoda to the in change thickness distribution in Izawa to enable visibility of the mark for position detection (¶ [0086-0087]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2025 and October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues amended claim 1 is overcomes the previous U.S.C. 101 rejections.
See updated U.S.C. 101 rejections above.
Although claim 1 further defines additional criteria for “controlling an application condition” by changing a film thickness and further defines criteria for “controlling a detection condition” by adjusting a wavelength or intensity, the additional elements do not further integrate the abstract ideas into a particular practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea as disclosed in the prior art.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues claim 8 is supported with the amendment of claim 1.
Although claim 1 is amended for support regarding “a detection condition”, claim 8 recites an additional step of “detecting a particle” and “a particle detection sensitivity in the detecting is controlled” and is unrelated to the amendments to “detection condition for alignment detection” in claim 1.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues amended claim 1 is not disclosed in the cited prior art.
See updated U.S.C. 103 rejections above.
Applicant argues amended claim 1 achieves an improvement in accuracy by controlling “application condition” and “alignment detection condition”.
In response to applicant's argument that accuracy is improved, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “controlling an application condition” or “controlling a detection condition”; therefore, does not require both “controlling” steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754