DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 13 has been added to the claims. Applicant provided citations to Figures 8 and 11 to indicate support for the new claim.
The originally-filed disclosure was evaluated to determine if it contained sufficient support for the newly claimed matter. Figure 11 and ¶83-84, particularly “Note that although Fig. 11 shows the change over time in the quantity of the gas trapped in each closed region, the change in the pressure or the volume of the gas over time may also be simultaneously displayed.” appear to sufficiently support the claimed matter such that it is apparent to the examiner that the inventor had possession of the claimed matter at the time of filing.
No new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant argues that the claim is not directed to a judicial exception because the claim as a whole allegedly integrates the exception into a practical application due to an alleged improvement in technology of forming an actual film of a curable composition.
The applicant brings attention to the specification to describe the present invention, making reference to ¶7 of the specification. The applicant particularly notes that the gas trapped between the droplets can be visually confirmed. This is an admission to the judicial exception of mental process, as making visual observations and judgements are tasks that can be practically performed in the human mind or using assistive physical aids. Furthermore, applicant references such visual observations make possible a prediction of a location of a defect may occur in a film forming process. A human being can further make predictions using judgements and evaluations of current conditions, and therefore this is further admission that the claimed invention is a judicial exception, particularly mental process. Applicant further notes that using an unspecified and generic simulation enables the setting of the arrangement of droplets, methods, and conditions to be completed more easily, thereby indicating that the process is already that which can be construed as a mental process but is made simpler (“more easily” per the applicant) by use of assistive aids such as a generic computer simulation.
Applicant further states that the limitation “displaying gas information to thereby display (i) in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least a mole of gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information, and then obtaining at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition” is sufficient to demonstrate that the technology of forming the actual film of the curable composition may be improved. Applicant specifically states that the improvement in the forming of an actual film of a curable composition is recognized as the improvement provided by the invention.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. There are no limitations recited in claim 1 which reflect an improvement of the forming process of the film. Per MPEP 2106.05, the judicial exception cannot provide the improvement and the improvement must be provided by one or more additional elements. The improvements are rooted in the observations, predictions, and judgements of gas behavior between droplets which can be made by the human mind. Such mental processes are further used to make a judgement of how to update the parameters of the process, which again is the recitation of that which can be construed as a mental process since there are no particular elements by which the updating occurs. Instead, rather, the claim recites the obtaining of the parameter which is understood under broadest reasonable interpretation to entail receiving data over a network. This task is considered by the courts as a well understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner such as in this claim. The claim recites the use of simulation and display at a high level of generality by which to perform the mental process, which is merely the invocation of generic computing components to enable the mental process. The mechanisms by which the film are created do not appear to be inventive beyond any standard capacity by which films in such applications would be otherwise formed and are considered to be merely applying the judicial exception (the updated parameters based off of observations and judgements). That is to say, the limitation “causing the film forming apparatus to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member according to the plurality of parameters including the at least one updated parameter” appears to demonstrate that the film forming apparatus is functioning it a non-inventive capacity based on parameters which have been updated as part of a mental process to optimize them.
During the interview, applicant made reference to a different application with similar claim structure which was allowed by the examiner of the particular case (17/372,622). After consultation with the Examiner’s supervisor and after reviewing the facts of the referenced case, the facts between the instant application and the reference ‘622 case have been determined to be different and accordingly the applications are being treated distinct from one another.
For the reasons stated in this response, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant argues that the combination of references fail to disclose or suggest the feature “displaying the gas information to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information…”.
Particularly, applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s notion that the modified combination of references would result in the display of gas information as claimed in claim 1 because “Jain does not disclose or even remotely suggest the feature. The applicant notes that Jain explicitly describes that the contour maps of Figure 4 show pressure fields “within the droplet[s]” and further emphasizes that the teachings of Jain disclose a contour plot showing a mole value within a droplet itself which is not the same as displaying the gas information present between the merged portions of a plurality of droplets.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner agrees that Figure 4 does display the pressure contour of the droplets themselves wherein the mole value can be derived using the ideal gas law as stated in the previous rejection. However, the examiner disagrees that Figure 4 of Jain does not disclose the quantification of the gas pocket. For ease of understanding, the Figure 4 of the Jain reference is annotated.
PNG
media_image1.png
879
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When viewing the Figure in black and white, it may appear that the space between the merged droplets remains a consistent color between each depiction of discrete moments captured in the 3 sub-images of Figure 4. However, when the referenced images are viewed in color, it can plainly be seen that the area surrounding the droplets in Fig. 4a is white, the area surrounding the droplets in Fig. 4b is white, and the area captured in the spaces where droplet spread indicates merging in Fig. 4c. is yellow. The fact that the depiction captures a change in the color of the spaces outside of the droplets clearly indicates that the white in Figures 4a and 4b is not merely a background color separate from the droplet pressure behavior. Rather, the pressure of the spaces between the merged droplets (as trapped gas) is in fact captured in the contour plot as a quantifiable value. The white color corresponds to a value of 0 and the yellow color corresponds to values occurring higher than 0. By the color indication of the area between the merged droplets, the pressure of the gas trapped within the droplets can clearly be quantified. Using the ideal gas law, as suggested by Jain, the relationship between the pressure and the mole value can easily be derived and thus the mole of the trapped gas within the closed region formed by adjacent droplets merged with each other is clearly displayed with information demonstrating the merged behavior of the droplets.
For the reasons stated herein this response, the rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, and 11-12 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
obtaining, for each of a plurality of droplets of the curable composition, gas information, which includes at least a mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between adjacent droplets to determine gas information, including the mole of trapped gas. When read in light of the specification [0066-0067], the degree of merging is based on a ratio of how much a portion of the contour of each droplet of the curable composition is in contact with the contour of another droplet. To determine this ratio, the contour of the droplet is discretized into a plurality of angles and compared with discretized angles of another adjacent droplet. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The inclusion of “a relationship” and a “degree of merging” as it pertains to the angles being evaluated is additionally the recitation of the mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
obtaining a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) mere data gathering.
displaying the gas information to thereby display (i} in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information~;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtaining at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, the at least one updated parameter having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
causing the film forming apparatus to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member according to the plurality of parameters including the at least one updated parameter. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely recites an equivalent of the word “apply it” with regard to a parameter obtained subsequent to the recited mental process.
The courts have found that merely adding insignificant extra solution activity (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) to the judicial exception and recited the words “apply it” or a generic equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
obtaining a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim encompasses receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer function as well understood, routine, and conventional, when claimed in a merely generic manner.
displaying the gas information to thereby display (i} in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information~;- This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting two data sources and outputting them to a display. Displaying multiple data sources of data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys, is capable of outputting multiple data sources to a display. The data sources can include gas and fluid data when simulating multiphase flow models such as fluid-gas flow models. Ansys is a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics simulation software that has such capabilities built-in. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein it can be seen that multiple sources of data can be displayed. Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting multiple data sources, particularly pertaining to gas and droplets, to a display is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
obtaining at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, the at least one updated parameter having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim encompasses receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer function as well understood, routine, and conventional, when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional element was identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that merely reciting the words “apply it” does not qualify the limitation as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the particularity of a solution is not demonstrated sufficiently in the claimed language. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9:
Step 1: Claim 9 is directed to an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
obtain, for each of a plurality of droplets of the curable composition, gas information, which includes at least a mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between adjacent droplets to determine gas information, including the mole of trapped gas. When read in light of the specification [0066-0067], the degree of merging is based on a ratio of how much a portion of the contour of each droplet of the curable composition is in contact with the contour of another droplet. To determine this ratio, the contour of the droplet is discretized into a plurality of angles and compared with discretized angles of another adjacent droplet. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. The inclusion of “a relationship” and a “degree of merging” as it pertains to the angles being evaluated is additionally the recitation of the mathematical concept of mathematical relationships. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
one or more memories; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) .
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions in the one or more memories to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
obtain a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) mere data gathering.
display the obtained gas information to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information; This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
obtain at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, the at least one updated parameter having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
cause a film forming apparatus to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member according to the plurality of parameters including the at least one updated parameter; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely recites an equivalent of the word “apply it” with regard to a parameter obtained subsequent to the recited mental process.
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as well as merely reciting the words “apply it” or a generic equivalent (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional element does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
obtain a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim encompasses receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer function as well understood, routine, and conventional, when claimed in a merely generic manner.
display the obtained gas information to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information; ~;- This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting two data sources and outputting them to a display. Displaying multiple data sources of data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys, is capable of outputting multiple data sources to a display. The data sources can include gas and fluid data when simulating multiphase flow models such as fluid-gas flow models. Ansys is a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics simulation software that has such capabilities built-in. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein it can be seen that multiple sources of data can be displayed. Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting multiple data sources, particularly pertaining to gas and droplets, to a display is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
obtain at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, the at least one updated parameter having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim encompasses receiving data over a network. The courts have recognized this computer function as well understood, routine, and conventional, when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional element was identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and reciting the words “apply it" does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the particularity of a solution is not demonstrated sufficiently in the claimed language. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein in the displaying, the gas information obtained in the obtaining is displayed in a display position of the closed region from which the gas information was obtained.
This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application,
Step 2B: This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting a data source and outputting the data to a display in a position that is reflective of where the information was obtained from. Displaying data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys (a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics software), is capable of outputting data sources to a display. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein contour plots exist that display information corresponding to elements at particular locations of the simulation (Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide Figures 17.5-17.9). Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting data and particularly displaying information about a data source in a region where the data was obtained, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the gas information includes at least one of a volume and a pressure of the gas trapped in the closed region.
This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation further describes the field of use in which the data obtained by the judicial the judicial exception applies. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein in the displaying, a magnitude of the mole obtained in the obtaining is identifiably displayed based on the size of a circle. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of selecting a particular data source to be manipulated and mere data outputting. The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting a data source and outputting the data to a display using the size of a circle to indicate a magnitude. Displaying data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, simulation and data visualization software, such as MATLAB by Mathworks (a well-known off-the-shelf simulation software), is capable of outputting data sources to a display. Mathworks (Mathworks, “Matlab Help Center- bubblechart- Documentation”, Oct. 27, 2020, Mathworks.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20201027033104/https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/bubblechart.html) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, the documentation on the “bubblechart” functionality provides a methodology for displaying the magnitude of data represented as a circle, wherein the size of the circle corresponds to the magnitude value. ((Mathworks, Description, Line 1) "bubblechart(x,y,sz) displays colored circular markers (bubbles) at the locations specified by the vectors x and y. Specify the bubble sizes as the vector sz. The vectors x, y, and sz must be the same length."). Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting data and particularly displaying magnitudes of data values represented by the size of a circle, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation wherein in the displaying, a magnitude of the mole obtained in the obtaining is identifiably displayed by color. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of selecting a particular data source to be manipulated and mere data outputting. The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting a data source and outputting the data to a display using a color to indicate a magnitude. Displaying data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys (a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics software), is capable of outputting data sources to a display. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein contour plots exist that display magnitudes of values represented as colors (Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide Figures 17.5-17.9). Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting data and particularly displaying magnitudes of data values represented as a color, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein in the displaying, in accordance with an instruction from a user, at least one of a time at which the gas is trapped in the closed region and a change in the gas information over time is further displayed. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of selecting a particular data source to be manipulated and mere data outputting. The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). Receiving instructions from a user is similarly recited at a high level of generality ([0084]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than receiving an instruction from a user, selecting a data source and outputting the data to a display corresponding to a particular time or plurality of time steps. Displaying data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys (a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics software), is capable of outputting data sources to a display. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein data is displayed corresponding to multiple time intervals and wherein the time at which an event occurs can be captured and displayed (Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide Figures 17.5-17.9). Furthermore, the tutorial shows that instructions can be received by a user to indicate the time steps of interest for display (Section 17.4.10. Solution, Page 741, Step 8). Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting data, a user providing instructions to specify time step information, and displaying a data as a function of time, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation wherein in the displaying, at least one of information related to a pattern arranged on the first member and information related to a pattern arranged on the second member is displayed together with the at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region and the information indicating the state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of selecting a particular data source to be manipulated and mere data outputting. The courts have ruled that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of selecting a particular source of data to be manipulated and data outputting. When read in light of the specification, displaying data is recited at a high level of generality and understood to be on a display such as a generic computing device display. (Fig 1, [0049], [0076]). The claim does not impose limitations that amount to anything significantly more than selecting multiple data sources and outputting them to a display. Displaying multiple data sources of data to a screen is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Particularly, computational fluid dynamics software, such as Ansys, is capable of outputting multiple data sources to a display. The data sources can include gas and fluid data when simulating multiphase flow models such as fluid-gas flow models, wherein the location of elements can be ascertained and thus information regarding the arrangement pattern can be derived. Ansys is a well-known off-the-shelf computational fluid dynamics simulation software that has such capabilities built-in. Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide (Ansys, “Ansys Fluent 18 Tutorial Guide”, Jan 2017, Ansys Inc., pp 715-746) demonstrates multiple tutorials as evidence of these capabilities. Particularly, Chapter 17 provides a tutorial for tracking a liquid-gas interface, wherein it can be seen that multiple sources of data can be displayed. Because the functionalities are provided as built-in options for a commercially-available and widely-used product, the assertion is supported that outputting multiple data sources, particularly pertaining to gas and droplets and the corresponding locations, to a display is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The courts have found that simply appending well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation wherein the evaluation value includes, for each of the plurality of droplets of the curable composition, a ratio of a portion of a contour of a first droplet in contact with a contour of an adjacent droplet to an entire contour of the first droplet , evaluating an area in contact with another droplet compared to an area not in contact with another droplet. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Furthermore, the recitation of a ratio is a mathematical relationship between two elements. Therefore, this claim additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation executing the method of claim 1 ; and which has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because under broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation includes executing a method on a computer. The claim also recites the limitation manufacturing the article, the article including the actual film of the curable composition which has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception noted in claim 1 to the particular field of use of article manufacturing and further identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the words “apply it” with regard to the film formed based on the evaluation of claim 1. The courts have ruled mere instructions to implement a mental process on a computer, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and reciting the words “apply it” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or reciting the words “apply it” and limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a-the simulation method defined in claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have ruled including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 13, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 13 additionally recites the limitation further comprising displaying, in response to a user selection of the gas information being displayed, at least one of an amount, a pressure, and a volume of gas corresponding to the selected gas information in a graph. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The limitation has been additionally identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and output. The courts have ruled including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and appending insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional elements viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Because the claim contained additional elements that were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), the claim requires further evaluation to determine if the elements are beyond well understood, routine, and conventional activities. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, displaying data and receiving user input encompass transmitting and receiving data over a network. These computer functions have been found by the courts to be computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed generically such as in this claim. The courts have found that limitations that amount to adding mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and adding activities which have been found to be well understood, routine, and conventional are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 5-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et Al. (U.S. Patent No 9201990), hereinafter referred to as Wakamatsu, in view of Jain et Al. (Jain, A., Spann, A., Bonnecaze, R., “Effect of droplet size, droplet placement, and gas dissolution on throughput and defect rate in UV nanoimprint lithography”, 2017, Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B, https://doi.org/10.1116/1.4971771), hereinafter referred to as Jain.
Regarding claim 1, Wakamatsu teaches the limitations (except those surrounded by brackets ([[…]]): A method of forming an actual film of a curable composition in a film forming apparatus that brings the curable composition arranged on a first member into contact with a second member to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member, the method comprising: A nanoimprinting method is described, wherein curable resin droplets are analyzed via simulation and the nanoimprinting method includes employing an ink jet apparatus for bringing a patterned surface on a mold into contact with another surface containing a plurality of droplets of curable resin so as to form a film ((Wakamatsu, Col. 5, Lines 18-30) " A nanoimprinting method of the present invention is characterized by comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of droplets of a curable resin according to a droplet arrangement pattern produced by the simulation method described above onto a surface to be processed of a processing target substrate by the inkjet method; pressing a mold having a patterned surface, which is a target of analysis, against the plurality of droplets arranged on the surface to be processed while the patterned surface and the surface to be processed face each other, to form a curable resin film on the surface to be processed; curing the curable resin film; and separating the mold from the cured resin film.;").
obtaining a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition Parameters are obtained pertaining to the materials used in the film forming process ((Wakamatsu, Col 9, Lines 5-10) " In the analysis of the first embodiment, the format of the pattern 1 of protrusions and recesses that defines the patterned surface P, which is the target of analysis, and the density, the viscosity coefficient and the surface tension of the material of the droplets to be arranged on the patterned surface P are obtained as necessary parameters. "). When read in light of the specification (¶54), a parameter may include the arrangement of droplets of the curable composition. An initial arrangement of the droplets was also obtained ((Wakamatsu, Col 30, Lines 43-46 ) "Next, an initial fluid rate distribution was set within the analysis space based on the obtained initial arrangement, and simulation analysis of wet spreading and unions of droplets was executed.").
obtaining, for each of a plurality of droplets of the curable composition, gas information, [[which includes at least a mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets;]] Defects due to residual gas are estimated from the spread droplets that form a unified film ((Wakamatsu, Col 30, Line 67- Col 31 lines 1-3) "The thickness of the residual film and defects due to residual gas were estimated from the obtained height distribution of the unified film, and the droplet arrangement was corrected. ")
displaying the gas information, [[to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information;]] The sixth step of the simulation process output analysis results obtained from the fifth step as a height distribution of a unified film ((Wakamatsu, Col 3, Lines 29-31) " a sixth step that outputs the analysis results obtained in the fifth step as a height distribution of a unified film formed by 30 the plurality of droplets."). The defects formed by residual gas are illustrated (as a display) in Figures 13B and 14B which appear to be contour displays of the unified film that indicate the distribution of the droplets and/or associated trapped gas obtained as the height distribution output of step 6. The illustration of Figure 14 is described as a step executed by a program installed in a host computer of an inkjet printer, thereby indicating that the illustration was produced by the computer as a display ((Wakamatsu, Col 31, Lines 15-16) "The above steps were executed by a program installed in a host computer of an ink jet printer.")
obtaining at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, The arrangement of the droplets is adjusted ((Wakamatsu, Col 18, Lines 48-53) " The seventh step adjusts the arrangement of the plurality of droplets on the analysis surface and/or increases the number of the plurality of droplets within a range that does not exceed the maximum number ndrop in the case that there are portions having heights that do not match a predetermined threshold height, in the height distribution obtained in the sixth step.") the at least one updated parameter The arrangement of the droplets are adjusted (as an updated parameter as part of a repetitive optimization process that includes steps 5-7 of the methodology ((Wakamatsu, Col 19, Lines 50-56) " The fifth through seventh steps are repeatedly executed with respect to the plurality of droplets, the arrangement of which has been adjusted and/or the number of which has been increased, until there are no portions in the height distribution that have heights that do not match the predetermined threshold height, to optimize the arrangement of the plurality of droplets.”). having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and Figures 13A-13B are described as diagrams that illustrate the manner in which droplets are initially arranged, whereby analysis by simulation is then executed and Figures 14A-14B are described as diagrams illustrating the manner in which the arrangement of droplets is corrected, whereby simulation is then executed again as part of the iterative process in steps 5-7 described previously ((Wakamatsu, Col 7, Lines 34-40) " FIGS. 13A-13B are a collection of diagrams that illustrate the manner in which a plurality of droplets are initially arranged on an analysis surface having anisotropic wet spreading, and then analysis by simulation is executed. FIGS. 14 A-14B are a collection of diagrams that illustrate the manner in which the arrangement of a plurality of droplets is corrected, and then analysis by simulation is executed. "). The analysis by simulation includes the adjustment of the arrangement which is executed subsequent to the visualizations shown in Figs 13 and 14, as stated previously, thereby indicating that the adjustment occurs after the display ((Wakamatsu, Col 17, Lines 34-41) " In the simulation method of the second embodiment, the fifth step through the seventh step are repeatedly executed with respect to the plurality of droplets, the arrangement of which has been adjusted and/or the number of which has been increased, until there are no portions in the height distribution that have heights that do not match the predetermined threshold height, to optimize the arrangement of the plurality of droplets. ")
causing the film forming apparatus to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member according to the plurality of parameters including the at least one updated parameter. The optimized arrangement, obtained in an optimization performed by a simulation is used to execute a nanoimprinting method ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, Lines 10-21) " The nanoimprinting method of the present embodiment is characterized by comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of droplets of a curable resin according to a droplet arrangement pattern produced by the simulation method described above onto a surface to be processed of a processing target substrate by the ink jet method; pressing a mold having a patterned surface, which is a target of analysis, against the plurality of droplets arranged on the surface to be processed while the patterned surface and the surface to be processed face each other, to form a curable resin film on the surface to be processed; curing the curable resin film; and separating the mold from the cured resin film. "). The amount of expelled resist of the ink jet head are controlled based on the droplet arrangement ((Wakamatsu, Col 28, Lines 21-24) "The print control section 108 administers necessary signal processes, and the amount of expelled resist and expelling timings of the ink jet head are controlled based on the droplet arrangement pattern via the head driver 110 ")
Wakamatsu does not teach; however, Jain teaches …, which includes at least the mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets; When droplets make contact, gas pockets are formed ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Section C., Lines 1-2) "When droplets make contact, unfilled regions or gas-filled pockets are formed, as seen, for example, in Fig. 7."). A modeling method is described for modeling a gas pocket formed in a UV nanoimprint lithography process ((Jain, Page 10, Col 1 Para 2, Lines 1-10) "Figure 12 shows a schematic for a gas-pocket formed during the UVNIL process. The pocket can be modeled as a cylinder of radius Rd and height H. Cd is the gas concentration inside the gas-pocket, m is the number of moles, and Ci is the gas concentration at the gas–liquid interface. The gas–liquid interfacial area Ad and pocket volume Sd are given by [[equations 10 and 11]]"). The unknown m can be solved for numerically, where m is the number of moles ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 1-2) "The unknowns rd, h, sd, m, and pgas are solved numerically using Eqs. (20)-(24) and (27)."). The diameter of the gas pocket changes as droplets increasingly merge during the imprinting process. The more merged (degree of merging) the droplets are, the smaller the diameter of the modeled trapped gas is, as depicted in Jain Figures 4 and 9. Therefore, the gas information is based on the degree of merging of the droplets. ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 7-14) "The diameter of the pockets at different times as it shrinks is shown in Fig. 13. The initial pocket filling is orders of magnitude faster compared to the remainder of the pocket filling process. Initially, the gas pressure inside the pocket is about the same as the atmospheric pressure and gas diffusion is slow. As the template lowers, the pocket size reduces and the gas pressure and concentration increase"). Areas of a discretized substrate that are filled, unfilled, and partially filled can be described numerically using the VOF method. ((Jain, Page 4, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 2-8) "The equations are solved using the volume of fluid (VOF) method. The domain is discretized into cells, and the fluid content in each cell is tracked based on a characteristic function f. This function is defined as 1 for liquid and 0 for gas [as shown in Fig. 2(b)]. A value of f between 0 and 1 implies that the cell is partially filled and contains the droplet interface."); (See also Jain Figure 2). When droplets make contact (merge), the space between the droplets becomes characterized as liquid filled and can be visually observed, as shown in Jain Figure 9. Therefore, the relationship between merged and unmerged droplets on the substrate can be quantified as a value.
…to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information; The quantity m (moles) in the gas pocket is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of the pressure field for a plurality of droplets at the gas-liquid interface are shown, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. Multiple pressure contour plots of the liquid-air interface for plurality of droplets are shown for various stages of spreading, indicating the state of the droplet with respect to merging with other droplets and with respect to the air between the droplets. ((Jain, Page 5, Col 1, Section III, Para 1, Lines 1-8) "Figure 4 shows the spreading of nine droplets, including the location of the interface and the pressure field within the droplet. The droplets spread on the substrate as a flat template approaches the substrate. The template is driven by the capillary forces in the droplet and has no external force acting on it. The pressure is negative at the liquid–air interface because of the capillary pressure and positive at the center because of the viscous component of the pressure"); (See also Jain Figure 4). The pressure quantity is indicated by the key corresponding to the color of the contour plots to the right of the images in figure 4. While Jain does not explicitly display the moles of the gas in the display of the reference, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to be able to do so by substituting the mole value as the dependent variable in the plot for the pressure value as the dependent variable in the plot. One would be compelled to do this because Jain explicitly teaches the direct relationship of pressure to moles using the ideal gas law equation. Such a substitution would yield predictable results of being able to visualize a different variable in the liquid-gas interface.
Wakamatsu and Jain are both analogous arts because they are related to the same field of endeavor of simulations for nanoimprinting technologies, and both are particularly directed towards the reduction of residual gas bubbles that cause manufacturing defects in the nanoimprinting process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have integrated the modeling of dissolution of gas pockets taught by Jain into the nanoimprinting simulation and process taught by Wakamatsu because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Wakamatsu describes a nanoimprinting methodology that leverages simulation for optimization purposes so as to reduce defects in the cured film. Jain discloses a simulation methodology for modeling multi drop spreading with consideration particularly to quantification of the dissolution of gas as droplets merge. Jain notes predicting the rate of dissolution of gas pockets enables better control of the imprinting process by providing insights for wait times that are necessary to remove voids caused by the air pockets, thereby reducing manufacturing defects ((Jain, Page 9, Col 2, Section C, Lines 1-11 and Page 10, Col 1, Lines 1-2) "When droplets make contact, unfilled regions or gas-filled pockets are formed, as seen, for example, in Fig. 7. Large gas-pockets will remain after UV curing and result in defects in the imprint process. However, small gas-pockets will dissolve away into the photocurable monomer. If the gas dissolution is fast relative to hydrodynamic motion of the interfaces, then one may ignore the gas in modeling. If the gas dissolution rate is relatively slower, then waiting times are necessary to remove the voids. The simulations presented so far assume that gas dissolution is fast enough that gas dissolution can be ignored. Here, we develop a model to predict the rate of dissolution of gas-pockets, determine the waiting times and the conditions under which it is fast enough to ignore."). Jain further suggests that designing the UVNIL process based on the proposed models can significantly improve the defect rate ((Jain, Page 13, Col 1, ¶1) "Designing the UVNIL process based on the proposed models can significantly improve the throughput and the defect rate for the process"). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art to incorporate the quantified gas dissolution model into the film-forming methodology disclosed by Wakamatsu in order to arrive at the claimed invention so as to realize the improved process.
Regarding claim 2, the proposed combination teaches The method
according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein in the displaying, the gas information obtained in the obtaining is displayed in a display position of the closed region from which the gas information was obtained. The quantity m (moles), as the gas information defined previously, is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of a plurality of droplets are shown with respect to a pressure field, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. Numeric values that describe and quantify the gas information are correlated to the colormap-assigned values. The colors associated with numeric values of pressure, by which moles can be derived, are displayed in locations corresponding to where trapped gas (a closed region) exists (Jain, Page 5, Figure 4- Bottom Figure)
Regarding claim 3, the proposed combination teaches The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein the gas information includes at least one of a volume and a pressure of the gas trapped in the closed region. A gas pocket can be modeled as a cylinder and quantified by a number of parameters, wherein a volume can be derived as
S
d
((Jain, Page 10, Col 1, Para 2, Lines 1-10; Equation 11) "Figure 12 shows a schematic for a gas-pocket formed during the UVNIL process. The pocket can be modeled as a cylinder of radius Rd and height H. Cd is the gas concentration inside the gas-pocket, m is the number of moles, and Ci is the gas concentration at the gas–liquid interface. The gas–liquid interfacial area Ad and pocket volume Sd are given by
A
d
=
2
π
R
d
H
(10) and
S
d
=
m
C
d
=
π
R
d
2
H
(11)"). The pressure of the gas pocket can be derived through the ideal gas law as P_gas ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
").
Regarding claim 5, The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein in the displaying, a magnitude of the mole obtained in the obtaining is identifiably displayed by color. The unknown m can be solved for numerically, where m is the number of moles ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 1-2) "The unknowns rd, h, sd, m, and pgas are solved numerically using Eqs. (20)-(24) and (27)."). The quantity m (moles) in the gas pocket is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of a plurality of droplets are shown with respect to a pressure field, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. The pressure is displayed using a contour plot, wherein numeric values that describe the magnitude of the parameter are indicated by color (See Jain Figure 4). The equation between the pressure and the moles can be arranged such that the moles are solved for and subsequently the mole values can be plotted in the same manner as the pressure, as described previously, such that this substitution would be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein in the displaying, in accordance with an instruction from a user, at least one of a time at which the gas is trapped in the closed region and a change in the gas information over time is further displayed. Time steps for the simulation are chosen, indicating user instruction for time increments. ((Jain, Page 4, Col 1, Para 3, Lines 12-13) "Mesh sizes and times steps were chosen to ensure no more than one-percent variation of volume"). Timestamps can be displayed for various phases of the simulation as droplets spread, merge with one another, and form gas pockets, wherein information that quantifies the gas can be visualized numerically through contour plotting. (Jain, Page 5, Figure 4); ((Jain, Page 11, Col 2, Para 1, Lines 16-19) "Figure 14 shows the time at which the droplets come in contact Tcontact, time required for gas to diffuse Tdiff, and the total filling time Tfill for different number of droplets and values of a.")
Regarding claim 7, The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein in the displaying, at least one of information related to a pattern arranged on the first member and information related to a pattern arranged on the second member is displayed together with the at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region and the information indicating the state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information. The quantity m (moles) in the gas pocket formed by merged droplets is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of a plurality of droplets are shown with respect to a pressure field, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. Multiple pressure contour plots of the liquid-air interface for plurality of droplets are shown for various stages of spreading, indicating the state of the droplet with respect to merging with other droplets and with respect to the air between the droplets. ((Jain, Page 5, Col 1, Section III, Para 1, Lines 1-8) "Figure 4 shows the spreading of nine droplets, including the location of the interface and the pressure field within the droplet. The droplets spread on the substrate as a flat template approaches the substrate. The template is driven by the capillary forces in the droplet and has no external force acting on it. The pressure is negative at the liquid–air interface because of the capillary pressure and positive at the center because of the viscous component of the pressure"). The droplets are arranged in a pattern on a substrate and depicted with regard to the associated pressure values. (See Jain, Page 5, Figure 4)
Regarding claim 8, The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination in view of Jain further teaches the limitation: wherein the evaluation value includes, for each of the plurality of droplets of the curable composition, a ratio of a portion of a contour of a first droplet in contact with a contour of an adjacent droplet to an entire contour of the first droplet. Areas of a discretized substrate that are filled, unfilled, and partially filled can be described numerically using the VOF method. ((Jain, Page 4, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 2-8) "The equations are solved using the volume of fluid (VOF) method. The domain is discretized into cells, and the fluid content in each cell is tracked based on a characteristic function f. This function is defined as 1 for liquid and 0 for gas [as shown in Fig. 2(b)]. A value of f between 0 and 1 implies that the cell is partially filled and contains the droplet interface."); (See also Jain Figure 2). When droplets make contact (merge), the space between the droplets becomes characterized as liquid filled and can be visually observed, as shown in Jain Figure 9. The discretization size of the modeled substrate is known and therefore the size of the droplet edge can be computed mathematically ((Jain, Page 4, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 15-16) "The typical grid size for one droplet in the simulation is 64 x 64 cells to ensure volume loss is less than 1%."). One having ordinary skill in the art can visually evaluate and quantify the edges of the droplet surface that are surrounded by cells characterized as “gas filled” (not merged edge contour) and edges of the droplet surface that are surrounded by cells characterized as “liquid filled” (merged edge contour) in order to identify a ratio describing merged contact.
Regarding claim 9, Wakamatsu teaches (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]])): An apparatus that forms an actual film of a curable composition by bringing the curable composition arranged on a first member into contact with a second member to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member and the second member the apparatus comprising: An inkjet apparatus is depicted in Figures 10-12. ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, Lines 32-36) "An inkjet apparatus 10 of the present invention is characterized by comprising: a computer readable recordingmedium having recorded therein a simulation program that causes a computer to execute the simulation method described above, as illustrated in FIG. 10 through FIG. 12.") The ink jet apparatus employs the ink jet method ((Wakamatsu, Col 24, Lines 34-36) " FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram that illustrates an ink jet coating apparatus that employs the ink jet method to discretely arrange resist as a resist arranging apparatus."). A film is formed via a nanoimprinting method that utilizes the inkjet method, which is employed by the ink jet apparatus ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, Lines 10-21) " The nanoimprinting method of the present embodiment is characterized by comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of droplets of a curable resin according to a droplet arrangement pattern produced by the simulation method described above onto a surface to be processed of a processing target substrate by the ink jet method; pressing a mold having a patterned surface, which is a target of analysis, against the plurality of droplets arranged on the surface to be processed while the patterned surface and the surface to be processed face each other, to form a curable resin film on the surface to be processed; curing the curable resin film; and separating the mold from the cured resin film.")
one or more memories; and The ink jet apparatus has a computer readable recording medium ((Wakamatsu, Col 5, Lines 42-46) " An inkjet apparatus of the present invention is characterized by comprising: a computer readable recording medium having recorded therein a simulation program that causes a computer to execute the simulation method described above.")
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions in the one or more memories to: The ink jet apparatus is described as comprising a program that causes a computer to execute the simulation, wherein a computer that executes code would be understood to have a processor by which to execute the instructions of the code ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, Lines 32-36) " An inkjet apparatus 10 of the present invention is characterized by comprising: a computer readable recording medium having recorded therein a simulation program that causes a computer to execute the simulation method described above, as illustrated in FIG. 10 through FIG. 12.")
obtain a plurality of parameters related to the forming of the actual film of the curable composition; Parameters are obtained pertaining to the materials used in the film forming process ((Wakamatsu, Col 9, Lines 5-10) " In the analysis of the first embodiment, the format of the pattern 1 of protrusions and recesses that defines the patterned surface P, which is the target of analysis, and the density, the viscosity coefficient and the surface tension of the material of the droplets to be arranged on the patterned surface P are obtained as necessary parameters. "). When read in light of the specification (¶54), a parameter may include the arrangement of droplets of the curable composition. An initial arrangement of the droplets was also obtained ((Wakamatsu, Col 30, Lines 43-46 ) "Next, an initial fluid rate distribution was set within the analysis space based on the obtained initial arrangement, and simulation analysis of wet spreading and unions of droplets was executed.").
obtain, for each of a plurality of droplets of the curable composition, gas information, [[which includes at least a mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets;]] Defects due to residual gas are estimated from the spread droplets that form a unified film ((Wakamatsu, Col 30, Line 67- Col 31 lines 1-3) "The thickness of the residual film and defects due to residual gas were estimated from the obtained height distribution of the unified film, and the droplet arrangement was corrected. ")
display the obtained gas information [[to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information;]] The sixth step of the simulation process output analysis results obtained from the fifth step as a height distribution of a unified film ((Wakamatsu, Col 3, Lines 29-31) " a sixth step that outputs the analysis results obtained in the fifth step as a height distribution of a unified film formed by 30 the plurality of droplets."). The defects formed by residual gas are illustrated (as a display) in Figures 13B and 14B which appear to be contour displays of the unified film that indicate the distribution of the droplets and/or associated trapped gas obtained as the height distribution output of step 6. The illustration of Figure 14 is described as a step executed by a program installed in a host computer of an inkjet printer, thereby indicating that the illustration was produced by the computer as a display ((Wakamatsu, Col 31, Lines 15-16) "The above steps were executed by a program installed in a host computer of an ink jet printer.")
obtain at least one updated parameter of the plurality of parameters, The arrangement of the droplets is adjusted ((Wakamatsu, Col 18, Lines 48-53) " The seventh step adjusts the arrangement of the plurality of droplets on the analysis surface and/or increases the number of the plurality of droplets within a range that does not exceed the maximum number ndrop in the case that there are portions having heights that do not match a predetermined threshold height, in the height distribution obtained in the sixth step.") the at least one updated parameter The arrangement of the droplets are adjusted (as an updated parameter as part of a repetitive optimization process that includes steps 5-7 of the methodology ((Wakamatsu, Col 19, Lines 50-56) " The fifth through seventh steps are repeatedly executed with respect to the plurality of droplets, the arrangement of which has been adjusted and/or the number of which has been increased, until there are no portions in the height distribution that have heights that do not match the predetermined threshold height, to optimize the arrangement of the plurality of droplets.”). having been updated after the displaying the gas information; and Figures 13A-13B are described as diagrams that illustrate the manner in which droplets are initially arranged, whereby analysis by simulation is then executed and Figures 14A-14B are described as diagrams illustrating the manner in which the arrangement of droplets is corrected, whereby simulation is then executed again as part of the iterative process in steps 5-7 described previously ((Wakamatsu, Col 7, Lines 34-40) " FIGS. 13A-13B are a collection of diagrams that illustrate the manner in which a plurality of droplets are initially arranged on an analysis surface having anisotropic wet spreading, and then analysis by simulation is executed. FIGS. 14 A-14B are a collection of diagrams that illustrate the manner in which the arrangement of a plurality of droplets is corrected, and then analysis by simulation is executed. "). The analysis by simulation includes the adjustment of the arrangement which is executed subsequent to the visualizations shown in Figs 13 and 14, as stated previously, thereby indicating that the adjustment occurs after the display ((Wakamatsu, Col 17, Lines 34-41) " In the simulation method of the second embodiment, the fifth step through the seventh step are repeatedly executed with respect to the plurality of droplets, the arrangement of which has been adjusted and/or the number of which has been increased, until there are no portions in the height distribution that have heights that do not match the predetermined threshold height, to optimize the arrangement of the plurality of droplets. ")
cause a film forming apparatus to form the actual film of the curable composition on the first member according to the plurality of parameters including the at least one updated parameter. The optimized arrangement, obtained in an optimization performed by a simulation is used to execute a nanoimprinting method ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, Lines 10-21) " The nanoimprinting method of the present embodiment is characterized by comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of droplets of a curable resin according to a droplet arrangement pattern produced by the simulation method described above onto a surface to be processed of a processing target substrate by the ink jet method; pressing a mold having a patterned surface, which is a target of analysis, against the plurality of droplets arranged on the surface to be processed while the patterned surface and the surface to be processed face each other, to form a curable resin film on the surface to be processed; curing the curable resin film; and separating the mold from the cured resin film. "). The amount of expelled resist of the ink jet head are controlled based on the droplet arrangement ((Wakamatsu, Col 28, Lines 21-24) "The print control section 108 administers necessary signal processes, and the amount of expelled resist and expelling timings of the ink jet head are controlled based on the droplet arrangement pattern via the head driver 110 ")
Wakamatsu does not teach; however, Jain teaches which includes at least a mole of a gas trapped in a closed region formed by adjacent droplets merging with each other, based on an evaluation value for evaluating a relationship related to a degree of merging between the adjacent droplets; When droplets make contact, gas pockets are formed ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Section C., Lines 1-2) "When droplets make contact, unfilled regions or gas-filled pockets are formed, as seen, for example, in Fig. 7."). A modeling method is described for modeling a gas pocket formed in a UV nanoimprint lithography process ((Jain, Page 10, Col 1 Para 2, Lines 1-10) "Figure 12 shows a schematic for a gas-pocket formed during the UVNIL process. The pocket can be modeled as a cylinder of radius Rd and height H. Cd is the gas concentration inside the gas-pocket, m is the number of moles, and Ci is the gas concentration at the gas–liquid interface. The gas–liquid interfacial area Ad and pocket volume Sd are given by [[equations 10 and 11]]"). The unknown m can be solved for numerically, where m is the number of moles ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 1-2) "The unknowns rd, h, sd, m, and pgas are solved numerically using Eqs. (20)-(24) and (27)."). The diameter of the gas pocket changes as droplets increasingly merge during the imprinting process. The more merged (degree of merging) the droplets are, the smaller the diameter of the modeled trapped gas is, as depicted in Jain Figures 4 and 9. Therefore, the gas information is based on the degree of merging of the droplets. ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 7-14) "The diameter of the pockets at different times as it shrinks is shown in Fig. 13. The initial pocket filling is orders of magnitude faster compared to the remainder of the pocket filling process. Initially, the gas pressure inside the pocket is about the same as the atmospheric pressure and gas diffusion is slow. As the template lowers, the pocket size reduces and the gas pressure and concentration increase"). Areas of a discretized substrate that are filled, unfilled, and partially filled can be described numerically using the VOF method. ((Jain, Page 4, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 2-8) "The equations are solved using the volume of fluid (VOF) method. The domain is discretized into cells, and the fluid content in each cell is tracked based on a characteristic function f. This function is defined as 1 for liquid and 0 for gas [as shown in Fig. 2(b)]. A value of f between 0 and 1 implies that the cell is partially filled and contains the droplet interface."); (See also Jain Figure 2). When droplets make contact (merge), the space between the droplets becomes characterized as liquid filled and can be visually observed, as shown in Jain Figure 9. Therefore, the relationship between merged and unmerged droplets on the substrate can be quantified as a value.
to thereby display (i) in the closed region formed by the adjacent droplets merged with each other, at least the mole of the gas trapped in the closed region together with (ii) information indicating a state of the droplet corresponding to the gas information; The quantity m (moles) in the gas pocket is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of the pressure field for a plurality of droplets at the gas-liquid interface are shown, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. Multiple pressure contour plots of the liquid-air interface for plurality of droplets are shown for various stages of spreading, indicating the state of the droplet with respect to merging with other droplets and with respect to the air between the droplets. ((Jain, Page 5, Col 1, Section III, Para 1, Lines 1-8) "Figure 4 shows the spreading of nine droplets, including the location of the interface and the pressure field within the droplet. The droplets spread on the substrate as a flat template approaches the substrate. The template is driven by the capillary forces in the droplet and has no external force acting on it. The pressure is negative at the liquid–air interface because of the capillary pressure and positive at the center because of the viscous component of the pressure"); (See also Jain Figure 4). The pressure quantity is indicated by the key corresponding to the color of the contour plots to the right of the images in figure 4. While Jain does not explicitly display the moles of the gas in the display of the reference, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to be able to do so by substituting the mole value as the dependent variable in the plot for the pressure value as the dependent variable in the plot. One would be compelled to do this because Jain explicitly teaches the direct relationship of pressure to moles using the ideal gas law equation. Such a substitution would yield predictable results of being able to visualize a different variable in the liquid-gas interface.
Wakamatsu and Jain are both analogous arts because they are related to the same field of endeavor of simulations for nanoimprinting technologies, and both are particularly directed towards the reduction of residual gas bubbles that cause manufacturing defects in the nanoimprinting process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have integrated the modeling of dissolution of gas pockets taught by Jain into the nanoimprinting simulation and process taught by Wakamatsu because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Wakamatsu describes a nanoimprinting methodology that leverages simulation for optimization purposes so as to reduce defects in the cured film. Jain discloses a simulation methodology for modeling multi drop spreading with consideration particularly to quantification of the dissolution of gas as droplets merge. Jain notes predicting the rate of dissolution of gas pockets enables better control of the imprinting process by providing insights for wait times that are necessary to remove voids caused by the air pockets, thereby reducing manufacturing defects ((Jain, Page 9, Col 2, Section C, Lines 1-11 and Page 10, Col 1, Lines 1-2) "When droplets make contact, unfilled regions or gas-filled pockets are formed, as seen, for example, in Fig. 7. Large gas-pockets will remain after UV curing and result in defects in the imprint process. However, small gas-pockets will dissolve away into the photocurable monomer. If the gas dissolution is fast relative to hydrodynamic motion of the interfaces, then one may ignore the gas in modeling. If the gas dissolution rate is relatively slower, then waiting times are necessary to remove the voids. The simulations presented so far assume that gas dissolution is fast enough that gas dissolution can be ignored. Here, we develop a model to predict the rate of dissolution of gas-pockets, determine the waiting times and the conditions under which it is fast enough to ignore."). Jain further suggests that designing the UVNIL process based on the proposed models can significantly improve the defect rate ((Jain, Page 13, Col 1, ¶1) "Designing the UVNIL process based on the proposed models can significantly improve the throughput and the defect rate for the process"). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art to incorporate the quantified gas dissolution model into the film-forming methodology disclosed by Wakamatsu in order to arrive at the claimed invention so as to realize the improved process.
Regarding claim 11, the proposed combination in view of Wakamatsu teaches An article manufacturing method comprising: A method for producing a patterned substrate is described ((Wakamatsu, Col 5, Lines 31-41) " A method for producing a patterned substrate of the present invention is characterized by comprising the steps of: forming a resist film constituted by cured resin, on which a pattern of protrusions and recesses of a mold is transferred by the nanoimprinting method described above, onto a substrate to be processed; and performing dry etching using the resist film as a mask to form a pattern of protrusions and recesses corresponding to the pattern of protrusions and recesses transferred to the resist film on the substrate to be processed, to obtain a patterned substrate.")
executing the method of claim 1; and The method for producing a patterned substrate includes performing the nanoimprinting method wherein the nanoimprinting method includes the method of claim 1 wherein a simulation is performed according to parameters as stated previously ((Wakamatsu, Col 5, Lines 18-30) " A nanoimprinting method of the present invention is characterized by comprising the steps of: arranging a plurality of droplets of a curable resin according to a droplet arrangement pattern produced by the simulation method described above onto a surface to be processed of a processing target substrate by the inkjet method; pressing a mold having a patterned surface, which is a target of analysis, against the plurality of droplets arranged on the surface to be processed while the patterned surface and the surface to be processed face each other, to form a curable resin film on the surface to be processed; curing the curable resin film; and separating the mold from the cured resin film")
manufacturing the article, the article including the actual film of the curable composition. A patterned substrate is obtained through the method (as a manufactured article), wherein the resist film (actual film of curable composition) is produced as part of the nanoimprinting method and used subsequently to form the pattern substrate ((Wakamatsu, Col 5, Lines 31-41) " A method for producing a patterned substrate of the present invention is characterized by comprising the steps of: forming a resist film constituted by cured resin, on which a pattern of protrusions and recesses of a mold is transferred by the nanoimprinting method described above, onto a substrate to be processed; and performing dry etching using the resist film as a mask to form a pattern of protrusions and recesses corresponding to the pattern of protrusions and recesses transferred to the resist film on the substrate to be processed, to obtain a patterned substrate.") ")
Regarding claim 12, the proposed combination in view of Wakamatsu teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method defined in claim 1. An ink jet apparatus comprises a computer readable recording medium that causes a computer to execute a simulation method that is used per the methodology described in the rejection of claim 1, as stated previously ((Wakamatsu, Col 20, ¶32-36) "An inkjet apparatus 10 of the present invention is characterized by comprising: a computer readable recording medium having recorded therein a simulation program that causes a computer to execute the simulation method described above, as illustrated in FIG. 10 through FIG. 12.").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu and Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mathworks (Mathworks, “Matlab Help Center- bubblechart- Documentation”, Oct. 27, 2020, Mathworks.com, https://web.archive.org/web/20201027033104/https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/bubblechart.html), hereinafter referred to as Mathworks.
Regarding claim 4, the proposed combination of Wakamatsu and Jain teach The method according to claim 1, as stated previously for the rejection of claim 1.
The proposed combination teaches further in view of Jain (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[…]]) wherein in the displaying, a magnitude of the mole obtained in the obtaining [[is identifiably displayed based on the size of a circle.]] The unknown m can be solved for numerically, where m is the number of moles ((Jain, Page 11, Col 1, Para 1, Lines 1-2) "The unknowns rd, h, sd, m, and pgas are solved numerically using Eqs. (20)-(24) and (27)."). The quantity m (moles) in the gas pocket is related to P_gas using the ideal gas law ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). Contour plots of a plurality of droplets are shown with respect to a pressure field, wherein pressure is related to the number of moles, as described previously. The pressure is displayed using a contour plot, wherein numeric values that describe the magnitude of the parameter are indicated by color (See Jain Figure 4). The equation between the pressure and the moles can be arranged such that the moles are solved for and subsequently the mole values can be plotted in the same manner as the pressure to visualize the magnitude.
The proposed combination does not teach; however, Mathworks teaches is identifiably displayed based on the size of a circle Bubble charts can be used to visualize magnitudes of data points at geographic locations of interest, wherein the magnitude of the value of interest is characterized by the size of a circle. ((Mathworks, Description, Line 1) "bubblechart(x,y,sz) displays colored circular markers (bubbles) at the locations specified by the vectors x and y. Specify the bubble sizes as the vector sz. The vectors x, y, and sz must be the same length.")
Mathworks is analogous art because it is documentation for simulation software that can be used to model, simulate, and visualize relationships between data. The instant application likewise pertains to the simulation and visualization of data. Jain explicitly teaches the usage of contour plotting to visualize data. Bubblecharts, such as those taught by Mathworks, are standard data visualization tools that are provided with off-the-shelf modeling, simulation and data visualization software such as MATLAB. Different data visualization tools can be used based on user preference and in order to provide different insights regarding data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the data visualization of bubblecharts as taught by Mathworks into the simulation methodology described by Jain because simple substitution of one element for another would have yielded predictable results such that one having skill in the art would arrive at the claimed invention. Jain already integrates data visualization for data to display magnitude. Using bubblecharts for data visualization instead yields the predictable results of accurately displaying magnitudes of data with respect to coordinates for a desired area of interest. ((Mathworks, Description, Line 1) "bubblechart(x,y,sz) displays colored circular markers (bubbles) at the locations specified by the vectors x and y. Specify the bubble sizes as the vector sz. The vectors x, y, and sz must be the same length."). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art to modify the prior art references in this way to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the proposed combination of Wakamatsu in view of Jain as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rueter et al (US Patent No. 10,884,574 B1), hereinafter referred to as Rueter.
Regarding claim 13, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Jain discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) further comprising displaying, [[in response to a user selection of the]] gas [[information being displayed,]] at least one of an amount, a pressure, and a volume of gas [[corresponding to the selected]] gas [[information]] in a graph. The pressure field of nine droplets is depicted at discrete time steps, wherein the areas of gas trapped between merging droplets is also quantified by pressure values ((Jain, Page 5, Col 1, ¶2) " Figure 4 shows the spreading of nine droplets, including the location of the interface and the pressure field within the droplet."); See also Jain figure 4. Furthermore, Jain explicitly provides a mathematical relationship between pressure, pocket volume, and moles of the gas in Equation 19 which provides a direct mechanism by which to modify the plot of Figure 4 for different values ((Jain, Page 10, Col 2, Equation 19) "
P
g
a
s
=
m
R
T
s
S
d
"). The diameter of a gas pocket is given in a graph form in Figure 13a for various values of alpha and the gap height between the template and the substrate are given in graph form in Figure 13b over time. Figure 13a further displays the decrease in pressure of a gas pocket over time ((Jain, Page11, Col 1, ¶1- Col 2, ¶1) "The diameter of the pockets at different times as it shrinks is shown in Fig. 13. The initial pocket filling is orders of magnitude faster compared to the remainder of the pocket filling process. Initially, the gas pressure inside the pocket is about the same as the atmospheric pressure and gas diffusion is slow. As the template lowers, the pocket size reduces and the gas pressure and concentration increase. The increase in gas pressure slows down the template and the gap height becomes close very slowly as shown in Fig. 13(b)."). Jain provides a mathematical relationship between the height difference between the template/substrate and the diameter of the gas pocket for determining the volume of the gas pocket when the gas pocket is modeled as a cylinder ((Jain, Page 10, Col 1, ¶2) "Figure 12 shows a schematic for a gas-pocket formed during the UVNIL process. The pocket can be modeled as a cylinder of radius Rd and height H. Cd is the gas concentration inside the gas-pocket, m is the number of moles, and Ci is the gas concentration at the gas–liquid interface. The gas–liquid interfacial area Ad and pocket volume Sd are given by Ad = 2piRdH; (10) and Sd =m/Cd=piR2dH: (11) For a final gap height Hf and substrate width L, Sd can be written as L2H = ndSd + L^2Hf ; (12) where nd is the number of gas-pockets and L2Hf is the total liquid volume in the gap at any time.")
The proposed combination in further view of Jain does not disclose; however, in further view of Rueter discloses in response to a user selection of the … information being displayed, …corresponding to the selected… information in a graph. A tooltip is used to display additional information about a selected visual mark on visualized data, wherein the selection is based on user input ((Rueter, Col 8, Lines 31-40) "As illustrated in FIG. 3A, the tooltip 304 is displayed in response to a user input, such as a user hovering over a portion of the user interface. For example, a user hovers (e.g., using a cursor or other input) over a portion of the graph shown in FIG. 3A, and in response to the user input, the tooltip 304 is generated and/or displayed. In some implementations, the tooltip 304 displays more detailed information related to a portion of the image (e.g., the tooltip displays the data corresponding to a data point identified by the user's input). "). The additional secondary information in the tooltip may comprise a graph representation of the secondary data (See at least figures as examples 4G, 6L, 8D) ((Reuter, Col 12, Lines 31-41) "In some implementations, the secondary visualizations in a tooltip are static images. That is, they are not interactive. In some implementations, the secondary data visualizations are interactive, as illustrated in FIGS. 6L and 6M. In FIG. 6L, for example, the upper data visualization is interactive, and has it own tooltips. As illustrated, within the tooltip 622′, a user can select a city 640 in the top data visualization 626′, and a corresponding tooltip 642 is displayed, which provides information about the selected city (e.g., El Paso). In this example, the nested tooltip includes just textual information, but the nested tooltip could contain data visualizations too. "); ((Rueters, Col 3 Lines 29-33) "In some implementations, the primary data visualization and secondary data visualization each has a respective view type that is one of: bar chart, line graph, map, scatter plot, pie chart, heat map, area chart, circle plot, treemap, and bubble chart. ")
Reuter is analogous to the claimed invention because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor- that is the reference provides mechanisms by which to perform data visualizations in a computing environment which enable users to interact with data for analysis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to which said subject matter pertains at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the multi-level data visualizations of data points based on user input as disclosed by Reuter into the data visualization of the proposed combination because some teaching, suggestion, or motivation would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Reuter states that data visualization tools are helpful in enabling users to analyze complex data from an interface, and particularly notes that leveraging dynamic interfaces to view data provides more efficient human-machine interfaces and decreases cognitive burden on the user ((Reuter, Col 1, Lines 47-57) "Accordingly, there is a need for more efficient methods and interfaces for manipulating graphical views of data. Such methods and interfaces reduce the cognitive burden on a user and produce a more efficient human-machine interface. For battery-operated devices, such methods and interfaces conserve power and increase the time between battery charges. Such methods and interfaces may complement or replace conventional methods for visualizing data. Other implementations and advantages may be apparent to those skilled in the art in light of the descriptions and drawings in this specification"). By employing secondary data visualizations into the graphical depictions of the droplet spreading process of the proposed combination, one having skill in the art would achieve such advantages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187