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, 4-8, and 12-16 are examined.
Claims 10-11 are currently withdrawn in an election without traverse.
Claims 15-16 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous claim objections; therefore the objections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 and 112 (b) rejections; therefore the rejections are withdrawn.
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:
Claim 1 recites a “driver configured to drive”. Corresponding structure for the stage drive units such as a linear motor and an air cylinder which can be implemented as a variety of different guide systems (e.g., [0031-0033, and 0085]).
Claim 1 recites a “curer configured to cure” Corresponding structure for the curer includes a light source, such as UV light, and a window portion (e.g., [0029 and 0039].
Claim 4 recites a “detector configured to detect”. Corresponding structure for the detector can include an optical sensor, a small camera, and the like. (e.g., [0038 and 0064]).
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 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) 1, 4-8, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka (US20160320716A1) in view of Nishimura (US 2019/0333757 A1), Uchida (US 2010/0025878 A1), Choi (US 2002/0094496 A1), and Maeda (US 2014/0345805 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka discloses a planarization apparatus (¶ [0032] – imprint device 1) that planarizes a composition on a substrate using a mold (¶ [0011], [0032] – resin/imprint material 15 on substrate 18 and a mold 17 come in contact with each other; ¶ [0054], [0071], Fig. 1 – 18 has planar figure and straight shape; therefore, 18 planarizes 15 upon contact of 17 and 18 with each other), the planarization apparatus comprising:
a substrate holding chuck (¶ [0036] – substrate chuck 12) configured to hold the substrate (18);
a mold holding chuck (¶ [0035] – mold chuck 7) configured to hold the mold (17);
a driver (¶ [0035] – mold stage 8 is a driving system) configured to drive the substrate holding chuck (¶ [0035] – 8 moves 17 which is held by 7);
a presser (¶ [0055] – annular protrusion of 12)
a controller (¶ [0041] - control unit 10) to control a relative position (¶ [0041] – controls 8)
the curer cures the composition (¶ [0031] – cured with light/ultraviolet rays) in a state where the composition on the substrate and the mold are in contact with each other (¶ [0042] – 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other)
a notch portion of the substrate (¶ [0054] – substrate end portion 32, can also be notch of 18)
a curer (¶ [0034] – illumination unit 2) configured to cure the composition (¶ [0031], [0034] – ultraviolet rays 3 from 2 cures 15)
Hosaka discloses a processor device 20 and distance sensor 27 detects the inner peripheral portion 33 of the protrusion and the positions of the substrate end portion 32 (¶ [0057], [0060]). The distance data is measurement data representing the positional relationship between 18 and 12 (¶ [0056], [0060]). From the amount of positional deviation, control unit 10 obtains the correction amount of the driving amount for matching the center positions by correcting the position of the substrate stage 13 (¶ [0058]).
Hosaka does not disclose after the curer cures the composition in a state where the composition on the substrate held by the substrate holding chuck and the mold held by the mold holding chuck are in contact with each other, the controller adjusts the relative position to a predetermined relative position in a state where the substrate is released from the substrate holding chuck and where the substrate is held by the mold.
Analogous art Nishimura discloses an imprint apparatus 100 including a mold 10 and substrate 1 (¶ [0021]). Substrate 1 held by a substrate chuck 2 and is positioned by substrate drive mechanism 3 including an XY movable part 4 (¶ [0023]). Y moveable part 5 moves 4 in Y direction and X linear motor drives 4 in X direction (¶ [0023]). Mold 10 is held by mold chuck 11 and is driven by mold drive mechanism 15 (¶ [0024]). An alignment detection system 16 is used for aligning the mold 10 and the substrate 1 and detects relative positions of reference mark on 4 or 2 (corresponding to presser) and an alignment mark formed on 1 (corresponding to notch portion of the substrate) (¶ [0026]).
Nishimura further discloses after the curer cures the composition in a state where the composition on the substrate held by the substrate holding chuck and the mold held by the mold holding chuck are in contact with each other (¶ [0025] – curing device 13 cures the imprint material in a state in which the imprint material on 1 and 10 are in contact with each other), the controller (¶ [0029] – controller 19) adjusts the relative position (¶ [0029] – controls each of the components 4 and 5) to a predetermined relative position (¶ [0028] – alignment of 1 based on the results obtained).
The detection system 16 can detect the positional shifts of the substrate held by 2 in the X direction and Y direction (¶ [0026]). The technique reduces the generation of an imprint defect (¶ [0005]).
Hosaka and Nishimura disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. 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 controller that controls the position of a substrate chuck by XY movable part based on relative positions of the substrate, substrate chuck, and XY movable part in Nishimura to the control unit in Hosaka to reduce the generation of an imprint defect (¶ [0005]).
Nishimura does not disclose adjusting the relative position to a predetermined relative position in a state where the substrate is released from the substrate holding chuck and where the substrate is held by the mold.
However, as Hosaka and Nishimura disclose a mold holding unit 6 including a mold stage with a plurality of driving systems for adjusting the position in the X-axis direction, Y-axis direction (Hosaka ¶ [0035]) and the mold 10 is held by mold chuck 11 and is driven by mold drive mechanism 15 (Nishimura ¶ [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the mold adjustable in a state where the mold is holding the substrate, since it have been held that adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to make the relative position to a predetermined relative position in a state where the substrate is released from the substrate holding chuck and where the substrate is held by the mold adjustable for various reasons including releasing the substrate from the substrate holding chuck. See MPEP § 2144(V)(D).
Further, Uchida discloses an imprint method forming a pattern of a substrate using a mold (Abstract).
Uchida discloses adjusting the relative position to a predetermined relative position (¶ [0040] – alignment with relative positions) in a state where the substrate is released from the substrate holding chuck (¶ [0046] – substrate pushed out from substrate cassette) and where the substrate is held by the mold (¶ [0040] – in the state where the mold and the substrate are stuck to each other; ¶ [0046] – outer circumference holding hand holds a substrate and a mold; operating cylinder puts the substrate and mold onto alignment pin).
Hosaka and Uchida disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. Therefore, 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 controlling of relative position a substrate stuck to a mold with an alignment pin in Uchida to the control of positional deviation in Hosaka to permit the difference between the relative positions to be more suppressed when the mold and the substrate are conveyed (¶ [0040]).
Hosaka discloses protrusion is formed in the substrate chuck 12 (¶ [0054]).
Modified Hosaka does not disclose a presser configured to press a part of the mold, when a composition on the substrate is in contact with the mold; and presses the part of the mold, to promote separation of a cured composition and the mold.
Analogous art Choi discloses wherein the presser (¶ [0203] – piezo actuators 502) protrudes (¶ [0203] – 502 is enlarged) from the substrate (12) to the mold (20) (¶ [0203] – 502 installed adjacent to the template 12 and an end of 502 in contact with substrate 20; Fig. 50B – 502 protrudes/enlarges from 12 to 20) and presses the part of the mold (¶ [0203] – 502 pushes 12 away from 20) to promote separation of a cured composition (18) and the mold (¶ [0203] – used to separate 12 and 20; ¶ [0202] – left intact transfer layer 18). Separation of template from the imprinted layer may be a critical, final step in the imprint lithography process (¶ [0201]). The assembly of the template, imprinted layer, and substrate leads to a substantially uniform contact between (¶ [0201]). Such system usually requires a large separation force or a peeling process, which may be undesirable from the point of view of high-resolution overlay alignment (¶ [0201]). However, separation of the template may be performed successfully by a “peel and pull” process (¶ [0201]). This peel and pull method may result in desired features 44 being left intact on the transfer layer 18 without undesirable shearing (¶ [0201]).
Hosaka and Choi disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. Therefore, 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 actuator adjacent to a template that enlarges to be in contact with the substrate in Choi to the annular protrusion on the substrate chuck in modified Hosaka to perform separation of the substrate and mold using a “peel and pull” process (¶ [0201]) to left intact resin/imprint material without undesirable shearing (¶ [0201]).
Although Choi discloses the presser protrudes from a template 12 to contact a substrate 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the piezo actuator to protrude from a substrate to a mold as claimed and mapped above to successfully perform separation by a “peel and pull” process (¶ [0201]), which result in desired features 44 being left intact on the transfer layer 18 without undesirable shearing (¶ [0201]).
Choi discloses actuator 502 is adjacent to template 12 (¶ [0203]).
Modified Hosaka does not disclose wherein the presser protrudes from the substrate to the mold through the notch portion.
Analogous art Maeda discloses wherein the presser (¶ [0087] – pressing pins) protrudes from the substrate to the mold (100) through the notch portion (¶ [0087] – notches 126 allow pressing pins pass therethrough to separate the upper substrate holder 100 and the lower substrate holder).
Hosaka and Choi disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply pressing pin passing therethrough notches as taught by Maeda to the protrusion and the substrate end portion of modified Hosaka to obtain the benefit of enhanced separation between the mold and substrate (¶ [0087]).
Although the notch is provided on the substrate holder, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also apply a notch to the substrate to allow pressing pins pass therethrough the substrate to separate the upper substrate holder 100 and the lower substrate holder (¶ [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a detector (Hosaka ¶ [0060] – distance sensor 27) configured to detect a position of the notch portion (Hosaka ¶ [0060] – detects the position of 32) wherein the controller (10) controls the position of the notch portion and the position of the presser (Hosaka ¶ [0058] – from the amount of positional deviation, 10 obtains the correction amount for matching the center positions by correcting the position of 13) by causing the detector to detect the position of the notch portion (Hosaka ¶ [0057] – detects the 32), in a state where the composition on the substrate and the mold are in contact with each other (Hosaka ¶ [0042] – 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other), wherein the controller (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controller 19) controls the position of the notch portion (Nishimura ¶ [0026] - alignment mark on 1) and the position of the presser (Nishimura ¶ [0026] - reference mark on 4 or 2) to match each other (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controls each of the components 4 and 5; ¶ [0028] – alignment of the substrate 1).
Regarding the limitation “the controller controls the position of the notch portion and the position of the presser…”, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. As claimed, the “controller” performing the recited functions do not narrow the functionality of the device as the “controller” is not “configured to” perform the recited functions and is interpreted as a general purpose computer See MPEP § 2214 (IV). Although claim 4 depends on claim 1, which recites “a controller configured to control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”, the functions that are configured into the controller (“control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”) are not recited in the instant limitation; therefore are not configured into the controller.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 4. Hosaka further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to determine whether the position matches the position of the presser (Hosaka ¶ [0057], [0060] - a processor device 20 and distance sensor 27 detects the inner peripheral portion 33 of the protrusion and the positions of the substrate end portion 32), and wherein in a case that the controller determines that the position of the notch portion does not match the position (Hosaka ¶ [0056], [0060] - distance data is measurement data representing the positional relationship between 18 and 12), the controller is further configured to perform a positional adjustment of the presser (¶ [0058] - from the amount of positional deviation, control unit 10 obtains the correction amount of the driving amount for matching the center positions by correcting the position of the substrate stage 13).
Hosaka does not disclose the position of the notch portion matches the position of the presser, and a case that the controller determines that the position of the notch portion does not match the position of the presser.
However, Nishimura further discloses the controller (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controller 19) is further configured to determine whether the position of the notch portion matches the position of the presser (¶ [0026] – detection system 16 for detecting the relative positions of an alignment mark of mold 10 and a reference mark provided on the XY movable part or the substrate chuck or an alignment mark formed on the substrate 1; can detect the positional shifts of 1 held by substrate chuck 2 and 10 held by the mold chuck 11 in the X direction and Y direction), and wherein in a case that the controller determines that the position of the notch portion does not match the position of the presser, the controller is further configured to perform a position adjustment of the presser (¶ [0028] – alignment of 1 based on the results obtained; ¶ [0029] – controls each of the components 4 and 5). The technique reduces the generation of an imprint defect (¶ [0005]).
Hosaka and Nishimura disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. 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 controller that controls the position a substrate chuck by XY movable part based on relative positions of the substrate, substrate chuck, and XY movable part in Nishimura to the control unit in Hosaka to reduce the generation of an imprint defect (¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the presser is a part of the substrate holding chuck (Hosaka ¶ [0054] – protrusion is formed in 12), and wherein the controller adjusts the position of the presser to the predetermined relative position by causing the driver to move the substrate holding chuck (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controls each of the components 4 and 5; ¶ [0028] – alignment of the substrate 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the controller causes the driver (¶ [0041] – 10 controls 8 and 13) to move the substrate holding chuck (¶ [0035] – 8 moves 17 which is held by 7) in a state where the substrate and the mold in contact with each other with the composition interposed therebetween (¶ [0042] – 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other) are held by the mold holding chuck (as 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other, they are held by 7 which holds 17).
Regarding claim 7, Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the controller causes the drive unit (¶ [0041] – 10 controls 8 and 13) to move the substrate holding chuck (¶ [0035] – 8 moves 17 which is held by 7), in a state where the substrate and the mold in contact with each other with the composition interposed therebetween (¶ [0042] – 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other) are held by a substrate conveyance unit (¶ [0042] – conveying arm/unit 24; as 17 and 15 on 18 are in contact with each other, they are held by conveying unit 24 which holds 13 and 18).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a presser driver (Choi ¶ [0203] – piezo actuators 502) configured to drive the presser (Choi ¶ [0203] – 502 is enlarged), wherein the controller adjusts the position of the presser to the predetermined relative position (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controller 19, ¶ [0028] - alignment of the substrate 1) by moving the presser driver (Choi ¶ [0203] – 12 pushed away from 20; used to separate 12 and 20).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the presser presses the mold (Choi ¶ [0203] – end of 502 in contact with substrate 20) without coming into contact with the substrate (Choi ¶ [0203] - 502 is adjacent to template 12; therefore does not contact with template 12).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a substrate stage (Hosaka ¶ [0036] – substrate stage 13, a moving unit), wherein the substrate holding chuck (Hosaka ¶ [0036] – substrate holding unit 11) and the presser (Hosaka ¶ [0055] – annular protrusion of 12) are disposed on the substrate stage (Hosaka ¶ [0041] – 13 included in 11; ¶ [0050] – 12 configured on 13).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka (US20160320716A1) in view of Nishimura (US 2019/0333757 A1), Uchida (US 2010/0025878 A1), Choi (US 2002/0094496 A1), and Maeda (US 2014/0345805 A1), as applied to claim 1, alternatively in further view of Owa (US 2006/0139614 A1)
Regarding claim 13, modified Hosaka discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the position of the presser (Nishimura reference mark on 4 or 2) is controlled (Nishimura ¶ [0029] – controls each of the components 4 and 5) in a case where a position of the notch portion of the substrate (Nishimura ¶ [0026] –alignment mark on 1) and the position of the presser (Nishimura ¶ [0026] – reference mark on 4 or 2) do not match (Nishimura ¶ [0028] – alignment of the substrate 1 can be performed based on the results obtained; since the substrate chuck 2 is positioned to align the held substrate 1, the substrate chuck would be positions when they are not aligned/do not match).
In arguendo, modified Hosaka does not disclose the limitations, Owa is applied.
Owa teaches the position of the presser (¶ [0159] – protrusion member 152) is controlled (¶ [0151] – substrate stage is rotated with the position of notch portion NT) in a case where a position of the notch portion arranged on the substrate holding chuck and the position of the presser do not match (¶ [0159] – NT of substrate P and 152 are not aligned with each other). The substrate stage is rotated with the position the protrusion member to obtain the benefit of aligning the protrusion member and notch (¶ [0151]).
Hosaka and Owa disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. 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 positioning of the notch portion when it is not aligned with the protrusion member in Owa to the control unit in modified Hosaka to obtain the benefit of aligning the protrusion and notch (¶ [0151]).
Regarding the limitation “the position of the presser is controlled in a case where a position of the notch portion of the substrate and the position of the presser do not match”, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. As claimed, the “controller” performing the recited functions do not narrow the functionality of the device as the “controller” is not “configured to” perform the recited functions and is interpreted as a general purpose computer See MPEP § 2214 (IV). Although claim 13 depends on claim 1, which recites “a controller configured to control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”, the functions that are configured into the controller (“control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”) are not recited in the instant limitation; therefore are not configured into the controller.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Hosaka teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the position of the notch portion matches the position of the presser is determined (Nishimura ¶ [0028] – alignment of the substrate 1 can be performed based on the results obtained; since the substrate chuck 2 is positioned to align the held substrate 1, the positions of the reference mark on 4 or 2 and the alignment mark on 1 is determined from the results).
In arguendo, modified Hosaka does not disclose the limitations, Owa is applied.
Owa discloses the position of the notch portion matches the position of the presser is determined (¶ [0159] – state in which NT of substrate P and 152 are aligned with each other). The substrate stage is rotated with the position the protrusion member to obtain the benefit of aligning the protrusion member and notch (¶ [0151]).
Hosaka and Owa disclose apparatuses with the same or similar components performing the same or similar function. 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 determining if the position of the notch portion arranged on the substrate holding chuck matches the position of the presser as taught by Owa to the control unit in Hosaka to obtain the benefit of aligning the protrusion and notch (¶ [0151]).
Regarding the limitation “the position of the notch portion matches the position of the presser is determined”, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. As claimed, the “controller” performing the recited functions do not narrow the functionality of the device as the “controller” is not “configured to” perform the recited functions and is interpreted as a general purpose computer See MPEP § 2214 (IV). Although claim 14 depends on claim 1, which recites “a controller configured to control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”, the functions that are configured into the controller (“control a relative position of a notch portion of the substrate and the presser”) are not recited in the instant limitation; therefore are not configured into the controller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the support pins in Nishimura are pins for lifting up a substrate, and are not a presser for pressing mold as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the support pins in Nishimura are not a presser for pressing mold as claimed, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Further, Maeda was used to teach the presser for pressing a mold. Maeda discloses wherein the presser (¶ [0087] – pressing pins) protrudes from the substrate to the mold (100) through the notch portion (¶ [0087] – notches 126 allow pressing pins pass therethrough to separate the upper substrate holder 100 and the lower substrate holder).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the piezoelectric actuator disclosed in Choi only contact with a substrate, and is clearly different from the presser.
Analogous art Choi discloses wherein the presser (¶ [0203] – piezo actuators 502) protrudes (¶ [0203] – 502 is enlarged) from the substrate (12) to the mold (20) (¶ [0203] – 502 installed adjacent to the template 12 and an end of 502 in contact with substrate 20; Fig. 50B – 502 protrudes/enlarges from 12 to 20) and presses the part of the mold (¶ [0203] – 502 pushes 12 away from 20) to promote separation of a cured composition (18) and the mold (¶ [0203] – used to separate 12 and 20; ¶ [0202] – left intact transfer layer 18).
Although Choi discloses the presser protrudes from a template 12 to contact a substrate 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the piezo actuator to protrude from a substrate to a mold as claimed and mapped above to successfully perform separation by a “peel and pull” process (¶ [0201]), which result in desired features 44 being left intact on the transfer layer 18 without undesirable shearing (¶ [0201]).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, Maeda does not disclose the newly added feature of amended claim 1, and moreover, a notch disclosed in Maeda is a notch of the substrate holder, whereas the notch is provided in the substate in claim 1.
The newly added feature of amended claim 1 is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Hosaka in view of Nishimura, Uchida, Choi, and Maeda.
Analogous art Maeda discloses wherein the presser (¶ [0087] – pressing pins) protrudes from the substrate to the mold (100) through the notch portion (¶ [0087] – notches 126 allow pressing pins pass therethrough to separate the upper substrate holder 100 and the lower substrate holder).
Although the notch is provided on the substrate holder, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also apply a notch to the substrate to allow pressing pins pass therethrough the substrate to separate the upper substrate holder 100 and the lower substrate holder (¶ [0087]).
Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 on (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