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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are examined.
Claims 11-14 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to the claims overcome the previous claim objections and U.S.C. 112 (a), 102, and 103 rejections; therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments made to the claims do not overcome the previous U.S.C. 101 rejections and are sustained. See rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
alignment detection unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites a structural generic placeholder of “the alignment detection unit” associated with the function limitation of “adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light emitted from an alignment detection unit based on the measurement information so that alignment detection”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as a light sensor or detector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8 is 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 8 recites “increasing or decreasing an acceptable particle size…”. The instant disclosure recites in ¶ [0078] that “the acceptable particle size depends on the film thickness of the base layer” and “based on the in-plane distribution of the film thickness of the base layer, the value of the acceptable particle size in the particle detection apparatus is increased or decreased”. However, the scope of the term “acceptable” has not been defined and is unclear; therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
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):
“applying, via an application condition apparatus, the base layer so that a film thickness of the base layer changes by a predetermined amount in response to the measurement information”
“adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light emitted from an alignment detection unit based on the measurement information so that alignment detection through the base layer by the alignment detection unit is improved”
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,:
“applying the base layer based on an application condition … in response to the measurement information” in the context of the claim encompasses the user evaluating the measurement information to change in the base layer by a predetermined amount
“adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light emitted … based on the measurement information” 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. The steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The method does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The step of application based on the predetermined amount in response to the measurement information is extra solution activity and is considered a practical application of 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. The steps of “applying” and “adjusting” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception 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 § 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 anticipated by Kobayashi (US 2015/0048559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a molding method (¶ [0085] – pattern formation method) for placing a curable composition (¶ [0030] – photosensitive resin 70) on a substrate (¶ [0030] – substrate 250) including a base layer on the substrate (¶ [0030] – underlayer 260 on 250) and obtaining a cured product (¶ [0032, 0089] – photosensitive resin 70 is cured by the irradiation with light C) molded on the substrate using a mold (¶ [0031] – mold 100; ¶ [0104] – mold 102), the molding method comprising:
making position adjustment between the mold (100) and the substrate (250) in a state where the mold and substrate are in contact with the curable composition (70) (¶ [0022] – mold is brought into contact with the photosensitive resin, between the under layer and the mold, photosensitive resin gets in);
acquiring measurement information (¶ [0020, 0086] – first distribution in a layer (first layer) on a substrate is obtained) of in-plane distribution of a film thickness of the base layer in a vertical direction (¶ [0020, 0086] – distribution of level difference (height difference) of the underlayer); and
applying, via an application apparatus (¶ [0103] – an apparatus for performing pattern formation method), the base layer based on an application condition of the base layer so that the film thickness of the base layer changes by a predetermined amount (¶ [0095, 0099] - bending of the mold is adjusted based on the correction data, pressure applied to the mold is adjusted; as the mold, resin, and underlayer of the substrate are in contact with each other, the underlayer is affected by the applied correction) in response to the measurement information (¶ [0024, 0089] – correction data are generated that suppress the difference between one of the first distribution and the second distribution).
Regarding claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1. Kobayashi further discloses wherein in determining the application condition, the acquired measurement information about the film thickness of the base layer is fed back to the application condition of the base layer (¶ [0100] – difference between the film thickness of the photosensitive resin is suppressed as compared to the case where the bending of the mold is not adjusted)
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses an imprint method (¶ [0123] – imprint method performed by pattern formation apparatus 400) including the molding method according to claim 1 (as applied above).
Kobayashi further discloses:
wherein the mold (100, 102) includes an uneven pattern (¶ [0031] – pattern portion P of the mold 100, ¶ [0122] – concave-convex pattern of the mold 102) on a surface of the mold (¶ [0031, 0111] – base 10), and
wherein the mold (100, 102) is for forming on the substrate (250) a cured product onto which the uneven pattern (P) of the mold is transferred (¶ [0104] – transfers the concave-convex configuration of the mold 102 to a photosensitive resin on the substrate 250).
Regarding claim 10, Kobayashi discloses a method for manufacturing an article (¶ [0085] – pattern formation method; ¶ [0123] – imprint method), the method comprising:
forming a pattern on the substrate (250) using the imprint method according to claim 9 (as applied above); and
processing the substrate (250) on which the pattern (P) is formed in the forming (¶ [0094] – the transfer pattern is used as a mask to perform etching, pattern is formed on the substrate),
wherein an article including at least a part of the processed substrate (250) is manufactured (¶ [0122] – forms a pattern in which the configuration of the concave-convex pattern of the mold 102 is transferred to the photosensitive resin on the substrate 250 by the imprint method; ¶ [0105] – semiconductor substrate).
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 Kobayashi (US 2015/0048559 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Okamoto (US 20150251350 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further discloses the measured value are obtained from a plurality of areas on the substrate (¶ [0020, 0086] – distribution of level difference (height difference) of the underlayer; ¶ [0047] – level difference map M1 shows distribution of level difference amount in the region).
Kobayashi discloses the mold 102 is provided with a strength variation in accordance with positions in the mold, where the difference between the film thickness of the photosensitive resin and the film thickness of the reference is large in the correction data, the pressure on a position in the mold corresponding to that portion is made higher than that on other positions (¶ [0098]).
However, Kobayashi does not disclose the step of acquiring … is acquiring a distribution of measured values of a 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 a 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).
Kobayashi 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 level difference in Kobayashi 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, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further discloses distribution of level difference (height difference) of the underlayer (¶ [0020, 0086]) and level difference map M1 shows distribution of level difference amount in the region (¶ [0047]).
However, Kobayashi does not disclose the step of acquiring … is acquiring the in-plane distribution of the film thickness of the base layer by measuring an in-plane distribution of shearing force, 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 the in-plane distribution of the film thickness of the base layer by measuring an in-plane distribution of shearing force (¶ [0054] – residual film thickness dimension calculated by seeking a shear force of transfer portion 111), and in a 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).
Kobayashi 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 level difference in Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi (US 2015/0048559 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Ahn (US 20140314897 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further discloses obtaining an application condition (¶ [0020, 0086] – first distribution in a layer (first layer) on a substrate is obtained; distribution of level difference (height difference) of the underlayer) through changing the film thickness of the base layer (¶ [0095, 0099] - bending of the mold is adjusted based on the correction data, pressure applied to the mold is adjusted; as the mold, resin, and underlayer of the substrate are in contact with each other, the underlayer is affected by the applied correction).
Kobayashi does not disclose the application condition is obtained … such that there is a difference in height in an in-plane distribution of shearing force between a plurality of areas on a substrate falls within a predetermined range.
Analogous art Ahn discloses an imprint method (Abstract).
Ahn further discloses such that there is a difference in height in an in-plane distribution of shearing force between a plurality of areas on a substrate falls within 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).
Kobayashi 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 bending and pressure of applied to the mold in Kobayashi 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, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi discloses the mold 102 is provided with a strength variation in accordance with positions in the mold, where the difference between the film thickness of the photosensitive resin and the film thickness of the reference is large in the correction data, the pressure on a position in the mold corresponding to that portion is made higher than that on other positions (¶ [0098]).
Kobayashi 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).
Kobayashi 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 bending and pressure of applied to the mold in Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi (US 2015/0048559 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Minoda (US 20120328725 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further discloses an alignment sensor 7 detects an alignment mark provided on the mold 102 and an alignment mark provided on the substrate 250 (¶ [0113]). Control calculation unit 21 makes a calculation for making the alignment between the mold 102 and the substrate 250 based on the position information of the alignment sensor and makes alignment adjustment between the mold 102 and the substrate 250 (¶ [0117]).
Kobayashi does not disclose:
adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light emitted from an alignment detection unit based on the measurement information so that alignment detection through the base layer by the alignment detection unit is improved (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).
Kobayashi 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 alignment sensor and control calculation unit in Kobayashi 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 Kobayashi (US 2015/0048559 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Sato (US 20120141659 A1) and Minoda (US 20120328725 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses the molding method according to claim 1.
Kobayashi further discloses an alignment sensor 7 detects an alignment mark provided on the mold 102 and an alignment mark provided on the substrate 250 (¶ [0113]). Control calculation unit 21 makes a calculation for making the alignment between the mold 102 and the substrate 250 based on the position information of the alignment sensor and makes alignment adjustment between the mold 102 and the substrate 250 (¶ [0117]).
Kobayashi does not 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]).
Kobayashi 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 to the efficiently detected the imprint area while limiting a reduction in productivity (¶ [0041]).
Kobayashi does not disclose wherein a particle detection sensitivity in the detecting step is controlled by increasing or decreasing an acceptable particle size 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 a particle detection sensitivity in the detecting step 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) by increasing or decreasing an acceptable particle size (¶ [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).
Kobayashi 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 alignment sensor in Kobayashi to enable visibility of the mark for position detection (¶ [0086-0087]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed April 7, 2026 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 recites the film thickness of the base layer changes and adjusting a wavelength or intensity of alignment light emitted … so that alignment detection through the base layer by the alignment detection unit is improved, 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.
The position adjustment and acquirement measuring information – mental processes which can be performed manually, making the abstract ideas remain. The step of application based on the predetermined amount in response to the measurement information is extra solution activity and is not be considered a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the determining in claims 3-4 and 6-7, is still referring to an abstract idea because they just recite analysis.
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7360851 B discloses a method for control of spreading of liquid drops and digital analysis performed on images to determine whether the initial pattern of drops require mor or less liquid and subsequent pattern of liquid droplets is adjusted
US 2007/0228593 A1 discloses in nano-imprint lithography detecting thickness non-uniformity of a residual layer formed on a substrate and non-uniformity is compensated such that a uniform residual layer may be formed
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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. 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
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights