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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and declaration under 37 CFR §1.132 filed 6/11/2025 with respect to the latest amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 now requires a pattern layer made of silicon dioxide and an absorption layer made of Si and continues to argue that the use of Si in both the absorption layer and pattern layer would make “the absorption of the absorption layer and the pattern layer would be the same rendering the absorption layer less effective.” Examiner disagrees. The current rejection cites silicon dioxide as the pattern layer and Si as the absorption layer. As stated in Nakatsuka, the pattern layer, for example the silicone dioxide, has low absorption, see [0072]. As stated in Ito, the Si layer has high absorption to at least UV light, see Ito [0017]. Therefore, silicon dioxide and Si do not have the same absorption and Applicant has not submitted any evidence to support their assertion that silicon dioxide and Si have the same absorption simply because they both contain Si.
Applicant also argues that if Si is used in both the light absorbing layer 5a and the layer 5b of Nakatsuka, the layer will not achieve proper light absorption and would not be operable for its intended purpose. Examiner disagrees. The rejection does not suggest or rely on changing any other layer other than the layer 5a which is the absorption layer between the base and the pattern layer as claimed. The material of the other layers in the 5 layer structure is not relevant, particularly when the final mold product cited as shown in Figure 3-E only has three layers including layer 5a but not layer 5b.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention has a lower thermal expansion coefficient than the five layer structure in Nakatsuka which helps prevent cracks “that would otherwise be present in Nakatsuka.” Applicant has not cited any evidence that the thermal expansion coefficients of Nakatsuka and the claimed invention are actually different or that cracks occur as a result of the structure in Nakatsuka. Again, it is noted that the three layer structure in Figure 3-E of Nakatsuka is the final mold product being cited, not the larger intermediate 5 layer structure.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention produces an unexpected result of easy fabrication and preventing early curing of the transferred material. Examiner does not agree that these are unexpected effects of silicon dioxide. The ability to be etched is a characteristic inherent to the material itself. Nakatsuka, by disclosing a silicon dioxide pattern material, would necessarily include that the material is easily etched. As far as preventing premature curing, this is a known effect and is not unexpected. Ito discloses the ease of manufacture resulting from the absorption layer and preventing premature cure, see Ito [0023].
Applicant argues that Ito does not describe the absorption layer between the pattern layer and the base and therefore a person of skill in the art would not look to Ito to describe the absorption layer. Examiner disagrees. A person of skill would look to Ito because Ito also describes a roller mold for imprinting with an absorption layer. Even though Ito does not describe the absorption layer in the same place as Nakatsuka, Ito describes a known absorption layer for an imprinting mold. It would be obvious to simply substitute the absorption layer material in Nakatsuka for the known Si absorption layer material in Ito.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejections for dependents claims 6-7 and 13, however the independent claims remain rejected at this time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, and 14-16 are rejected 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka (JP 2015082542, made of record on the IDS dated 4/7/2021) modified by Ito (JP 2013045792, made of record on the IDS dated 4/7/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, A master (Nakatsuka [0065] describes a roller mold 101 serving as a master, see Figure 3-E) comprising: a base material; (Nakatsuka [0051] describes a rotating body 2) a pattern layer provided on one surface of the base material, a micro concave- convex structure being formed in the pattern layer; (Nakatsuka [0054] describe a concavo-convex pattern 3’ is formed in patterning layer 3, [0067] describes the pattern is micro sized) and an absorption layer provided to be sandwiched between the base material and the pattern layer, (Nakatsuka [0051] describe a light absorbing layer 5a, see Figure 3-E showing absorbing layer 5a between the pattered layer 3’ and the base rotating body 2) and having a light absorption coefficient larger than a light absorption coefficient of the pattern layer (Nakatsuka [0070]-[0071] describe the patterning layer 3 has high transparency and the light absorbing layer has low transparency, transparent materials absorb more light than transparent materials.)
Additionally, Nakatsuka describes several materials for the pattern layer including silicon dioxide and meets the claimed, the pattern layer is formed of SiO2 (Nakatsuka [0037] describes the patterning layer 3 can be SiO2.)
The courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified solutions, such as the list provided in Nakatsuka [0037], would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the polysilazane layer described in Figure 3 of Nakatsuka to be SiO2 because it is an identified solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Nakatsuka describes a CN material for the absorption layer and does not meet the claimed, wherein the absorption layer is formed of Si.
Analogous in the field of roll-shaped imprinting molds, Ito also describes a mold used in the imprinting process and meets the claimed, wherein the absorption layer is formed of Si (Ito [0034] describes the materials for a UV absorbing layer 13 includes Si.)
The courts have held that substituting one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the CN in the absorption layer of Nakatsuka with the Si of the absorption layer described in Ito in order to provide a material that absorbs UV light to prevent premature hardening of the resin during the imprinting process, see [0023] and [0033] and to adhere sufficiently with the glass base material, see Ito [0034].
Regarding claim 2, Nakatsuka as modified by Ito meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the absorption layer is formed of a non-metallic material (Ito [0034] describes the materials for a UV absorbing layer 13 includes Si.)
Regarding claim 3, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the pattern layer is transparent (Nakatsuka [0070] describes the pattern layer 3 should have high transparency.)
Regarding claim 5, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the base material is formed of a ceramic material or a glass material (Nakatsuka [0031] describe the rotating body 2 is made of quartz, quartz is a ceramic.)
Regarding claim 8, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the pattern layer has a film thickness larger than a concavity-convexity height difference of the micro concave-convex structure (Nakatsuka [0054] describe the pattern is formed in the patterning layer 3, it is inherent that if the pattern is formed on the patterning layer that the layer is thicker than the pattern, see Figure 3-E showing the patterning layer 3 is thicker than the pattern.)
Regarding claim 9, Nakatsuka does not describe the thickness of the absorbing layer and does not meet the claimed, The master according to claim 2, wherein the absorption layer has a film thickness of more than or equal to 5 nm.
Analogous in the field of roll-shaped molds, Ito meets the claimed, The master according to claim 2, wherein the absorption layer has a film thickness of more than or equal to 5 nm (Ito [0015] describes the thickness of a UV absorbing layer is 5nm – 30 nm and Ito [0034] describes a Si layer.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the thickness of the layer in Nakatsuka to be 5nm or more as described in Ito in order to effectively absorb the UV light, see Ito [0030].
Regarding claim 10, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the base material has a cylindrical shape (Nakatsuka [0051] describes the rotating body 2 is cylindrical.)
Regarding claim 11, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 10, wherein the one surface of the base material is an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical shape, and the pattern layer is provided along the outer peripheral surface (Nakatsuka [0051] describes the patterning layer 3 is on the outer peripheral portion 103 of the rotating body 3.)
Regarding claim 12, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, A method of manufacturing a master, comprising: forming an absorption layer on one surface of a base material; (Nakatsuka [0051] describes forming an absorption layer 5a on a cylindrical structure 2) and forming a pattern layer on the absorption layer, (Nakatsuka [0051]-[0052] describes coating a patterning layer 3 after the absorption layer 5a) the pattern layer having a light absorption coefficient smaller than a light absorption coefficient of the absorption layer, (Nakatsuka [0070] describes the patterning layer 3 has high transparency and the light absorbing layer has low transparency, more transparent materials have lower light absorption coefficients than less transparent materials) a micro concave-convex structure being formed in the pattern layer (Nakatsuka [0054] describe a concavo-convex pattern is formed in patterning layer 3, [0067] describes the pattern is micro sized.)
Nakatsuka does not describe absorption layer formed of Si.
Analogous in the field of roll-shaped molds, Ito meets the claimed, absorption layer formed of Si (Ito [0034] describes the materials for a UV absorbing layer 13 includes Si.)
The courts have held that substituting one known element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the CN in the absorption layer of Nakatsuka with the Si of the absorption layer described in Ito in order to provide a material that absorbs UV light to prevent premature hardening of the resin during the imprinting process, see [0023] and [0033] and to adhere sufficiently with the glass base material, see Ito [0034].
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the absorption layer sandwiched between the base material and the pattern layer absorbs light transmitted or guided through the pattern layer (Nakatsuka Figure 3-E shows the layer 5a between the base rotating body 2 and the pattern 3’. The layer 5a is capable of absorbing at least some light transmitted through the transparent pattern 3’.)
Regarding claim 15, modified Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the absorption layer sandwiched between the base material and the pattern layer absorbs light transmitted or guided through the base material (Nakatsuka Figure 3-E shows the layer 5a between the base rotating body 2 and the pattern 3’. The layer 5a is capable of absorbing at least some light transmitted through the quartz glass cylindrical body 2.)
Regarding claim 16, modified Nakatsuka meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the Si forming the absorption layer is a non-metallic material that has a light absorption coefficient larger than that of the pattern layer and is not transparent (Ito [0034] describes Si which is nonmetallic and nontransparent whereas Nakatsuka [0070] and [0074] describes the pattern material which has a lower absorption and is highly transparent compared to the absorption layer.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka as modified by Ito as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Park (US 2011/0149403).
Regarding claim 6, Nakatsuka describes a concave-convex structure but does not specify the type of pattern and does not meet the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the micro concave-convex structure is a moth-eye structure.
Analogous in the field of anti-reflective roll-shaped master molds, Park meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the micro concave-convex structure is a moth-eye structure (Park [0065] describes a master is formed via a film 70 that includes a moth-eye pattern.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the concavo-convex pattern of Nakatsuka to be a moth-eye pattern as described in Park because moth-eye patterns have anti-reflective properties and are particularly useful for optical display components, see Park [0068] and [0006]-[0008].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka as modified by Ito and in further view of by Furuya (US 2012/0148704, made of record on the IDS dated 4/7/2021).
Regarding claim 7, Nakatsuka does not describe the roughness of the base material and does not meet the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the one surface of the base material has a surface roughness of less than or equal to 1/100 of a concavity-convexity height difference of the micro concave-convex structure.
Analogous in the field of roll-shaped master molds, Furuya meets the claimed, The master according to claim 1, wherein the one surface of the base material has a surface roughness of less than or equal to 1/100 of a concavity-convexity height difference of the micro concave-convex structure (Furuya [0086] describes a roll body or main body with a surface roughness of 1/100 the height of the fine structure size.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the main rotating body of Nakatsuka with the surface roughness described in Furuya in order to avoid influencing the fine structure of the pattern applied to the roll, see Furuya [0086].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatsuka modified by Ito and in further view of Tomita (US 2001/0008741).
Regarding claim 13, Nakatsuka meets the claimed, A method of manufacturing a transferred object, (Nakatsuka [0065] describes using the mold as a master) comprising: applying a resin onto the pattern layer of the master according to claim 1 to form a resin layer; (Nakatsuka [0065] describes applying a film-like transfer body is applied to transfer the pattern) curing the resin layer and then separating the resin layer to transfer the micro concave-convex structure to the resin layer and form the transferred object; (Nakatsuka [0065] describes transferring the concave/convex pattern to the transfer body.)
Nakatsuka is silent regarding the type of resist and cleaning the master and does not meet the claimed, applying a light-curing resin and cleaning the master after the resin layer is separated to remove the light-curing resin remaining on the master, wherein the master after cleaning is repeatedly used to manufacture a plurality of the transferred objects.
Analogous in the field of replication, Tomita meets the claimed, applying a light-curing resin (Tomita [0048] describes applying a UV curable resin to the relief surface of an original) and cleaning the master after the resin layer is separated to remove the light-curing resin remaining on the master, wherein the master after cleaning is repeatedly used to manufacture a plurality of the transferred objects (Tomita [0048]-[0049] describes that the original or master is cleaned after replication and can be used again.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the replication process described in Nakatsuka with the UV curable resin and the cleaning step described in Tomita in order to repeatedly reuse the original for economic benefit, see Tomita [0049].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Zhao can be reached on 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744