DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/17/2026 and 04/01/2026. Claims 1, 12, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1, 3-16, and 18 are presented for examination.
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
The applicant has provided citations to the specification to demonstrate support for the newly-added limitations to the claims in at least paragraphs [0005], [0036]-[0043], [0052]-[0059], and [0089]-[0093].
These sections have been evaluated by the examiner and it appears that the newly-added limitations are sufficiently supported by the originally filed specification such that it appears no new matter has been added by way of amendment.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant has amended the claim in response to the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) in the previous action.
The amendment resolves the indefiniteness cited by the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection to claim 12 (and its dependents by incorporation) have been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant has amended the claim in response to the rejection set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the previous action. The applicant submits that the amended claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to expressly recite the particular technical problem and the particular technical mechanism for solving it, noting that the problem is a simulation error problem arising from boundary conditions in a computational region used for controlling film formation.
While the claim has been amended to recite at least part of the alleged improvement as set forth in the specification, the improvement appears to be provided by the judicial exception itself (the setting of the prediction target region as a partial region of the problem domain). By setting the prediction target region “by the computer”, the claim is merely invoking the use of a computer to execute a process which can practically be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive aids. The courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed entirely in the human mind and those which are recited as being performed by a computer. Furthermore, Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception.” When evaluating the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim provides an improvement to simulation, the way in which the additional elements interact with the judicial exception further do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not merely say “apply” the result of a calculation but instead the claim recites a simulation procedure used to control a film forming process, particularly noting that claim 1 expressly recites a particular technical problem and the particular technical mechanism for solving it.
Examiner disagrees because, although the claim does recite a problem of “computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the prediction target region”, there are no recitations of how the determined volume is used, at least in any inventive capacity, to demonstrate the technological solution of the problem. The claim simply states that the volume is determined to reduce computation errors and also states that a volume is determined based on an index indicating a positional relationship but does not state how the determined volumes for each droplet are particularly used to reduce any computation errors. That is to say “volume is determined to reduce computation errors” sets forth an improvement in a conclusory manner and the claim itself does not cover the particular solution to the problem or the particular way to achieve the desired outcome. It is not enough to say why something is performed but rather the claim must demonstrate how.
Applicant further argues that the amended claim 1 improves a technical field- simulation control for film forming.
As stated above, any alleged improvement appears to be provided by the steps which can be construed as a mental process. The improvement of a mental process is not an improvement in technology.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is implemented with particular machinery that is integral to the claim- a computer with a processor and memory to perform simulation and a dispenser that physically dispenses droplets based on adjusted volumes.
The particularity or generality of the elements of the apparatus must be specifically identifiable. The elements of the claim do not appear to be distinct from any other apparatuses that may perform the same functionality (generic computer and generic dispenser). The inclusion of the apparatuses in the claim appear to be merely the object on which the method operates and not integral to achieve performance of the method.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 results in a physical transformation- wherein a curable composition is dispensed as droplets on a first member and the second member is brought into contact with those droplets to form a film of the curable composition between the first member and the second member.
For a particular transformation, the physical object or substance must be particularly, meaning it can be specifically identified. The way by which a curable composition and a film are claimed does not make the substance/object uniquely and specifically identifiable.
The applicant argues that the Office has effectively dissected the claim and ignored the required interaction between the simulation limitations and the physical manufacturing limitations and alleges that the Office has not evaluated the claim as a whole. Applicant argues that the limitations define a closed technical control loop.
Examiner disagrees because stating “dispensing, by a dispenser, the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating” does not amount to anything more than applying the adjusted volume values as determined as part of a mental process/mathematical calculation in an unspecified way to a dispenser for film forming. Specifically, the words “based on” does not mean anything beyond using a determined volume to inform an additional step. An action being “based on” information does not introduce an inventive interaction between the elements of the claims such that the additional element is tied by an inventive relationship to the recited judicial exception(s). The relationship has not been ignored; rather, the applicant has failed to establish any sort of functional relationship that transforms the claim to produce an inventive concept through the additional elements or through the interaction of the additional elements with the judicial exception. In the same manner, executing a film forming process “in accordance with the dispensed arrangement” and “based on the simulating” is a continuation of merely applying the value obtained as part of the judicial exception and does not set forth any interrelationships between claim limitations that would present an inventive concept in the claim, when viewed as a whole and as an ordered combination.
Applicant further argues that the recited evaluations in the claim cannot be performed practically in the human mind (From applicant remarks: “The amended limitations are directed to a computer-executed simulation architecture and boundary-error mitigation technique used to control physical dispensing and film formation, not to a mental judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind as claimed.”)
There are no limitations in the claim which prohibit the claimed methodology from being performed in the human mind or using assistive aids such as pen and paper. The computation model is not specifically described in such a way that it is beyond reasonable human capacity. The setting of a computational area can be derived using pen and paper- stating that the limitation is performed by a computer is reciting a generic computer as a tool to perform the functionality in a computing environment instead of exclusively on pen and paper or within the human mind. Examiner agrees that control of the physical dispensing is not something that can be practically performed in the human mind, but the associated limitations to this have been identified as additional elements and have not been characterized as such.
Applicant argues that some additional features of the amended claim are not merely a generic use of a computer as a tool- particularly noting from remarks: “amended Claim 1 recites a specific simulation configuration and a specific error-reduction mechanism tied to the boundary of a computational region extracted for reduced computation cost. Claim 1 therefore recites a particular technological solution to a technological problem, not a generalized command to compute and apply a result.”
As stated in this action, the setting of the computation domain has been identified as a mental process, not merely applying the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claim does not recite a specific error-reduction mechanism. Rather, the claim states in a conclusory manner that the determined volumes are used to reduce errors but does not explicitly disclose how.
For the reasons given in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the previously set forth rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and argues that the amended claims are distinct from the prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended Claim 1 includes notable features which are distinct from the disclosure of Schumaker, particularly pointing to the setting of a computational prediction target region extracted from a shot region for reducing computational cost. Applicant notes that the regions disclosed by Schumaker are not computer-extracted computational sub-regions used to reduce simulation cost but are rather physical depth/ density regions of the patterned surface itself.
Schumaker discloses, according to computational rule sets, the identification and discarding of features in a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 50-57) "The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature. As described above, the first rule set r1 is used to identify features, or conversely to discard unwanted features. Features that are likely to be discarded may include those that are too 55 small and may be safely ignored, or those that are too large and may be best handled by the standard optimization routine. ") that correspond to patterned regions of an imprinting surface ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 52-57) " Fluid map 700 includes nine substantially similar cells, with shaded regions indicating features 704 in the imprinting surface. Other regions of the fluid map correspond to substantially unpatterned regions of the imprinting surface, and require an effective amount of fluid to form the desired residual layer.". The separation of too small/large features for the standard optimization routine from the other features of interest for the more computationally complex optimization routine indicates consideration for choosing computational regions exactly for reduction in computational cost, when certain features need not be more comprehensively evaluated. The features on the fluid map are the areas by which computation/simulation is performed ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features.").
Furthermore, as a note, a recitation of the intended use (the reason- reduce computational cost) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant further argues that Schumaker does not disclose a boundary equivalent to the boundary limit of a computational region but rather discloses edges which are density transition or feature edges within a fluid map.
The features have corresponding bounding areas ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 58-61) " The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in 60 the bounding area of the feature.").
Applicant further argues that Schumaker does not disclose a reason for determining volume, particularly, to reduce computation errors caused by a computation model that assumes droplets do not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region. Rather, the applicant submits Schumaker discloses weighting across an edge map to account for discrete changes in pattern density.
Schumaker discloses the drop pattern synthesis assumes perfect/ideal dispense volume and drop placement at exact grid locations, thereby indicating that the computational model applied for predicting drop placement according to likely flow accounts for idealized behavior. An optimization method is performed to include correction factors to account for conflicting volume results (errors) in the physical system due to non-ideal physical phenomena ((Schumaker, col 5 Lines 62-67 and col 6, Lines 1-3) " In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations. In certain embodiments, however, an optimization method may include correction for factors such as, for example, variation in the actual drop placement locations due to errors in the electro-mechanical dispense system, variation in drop volume due to variability in the fluid dispenser, and the like. These volume variations may be further affected by variations in the ambient environment."); ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-40) " A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location. Each dispenser has an ideal volume v,deaz, however the effective dispensed volume may be different. The variations are due to assembly and machining variations in the dispenser itself and evaporation of the fluid after it has been dispensed. The amount of evaporation, or volume loss, is related to the chemical composition of the fluid, localized air velocities, and the spatial distribution of the fluid on the wafer. These effects can be modeled and corrected for by applying a volume transformation function f to the fluid map. In some cases, this function is an identity transform. In a simple transform, f applies a scalar correction to requested volume."). The features in the fluid map are identified and modified according to rules that necessitate that features be convex to fit within the bounding area of the feature ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 58-64) " The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in 60 the bounding area of the feature. If a feature is deemed nonconcave then it is recursively segmented using a normalized cut version of spectral clustering until all segments or subfeatures are concave.")
Furthermore, as a note, a recitation of the intended use (the reason-determining volume to…) of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Accordingly the rejection of at least the amended independent claims is maintained for the reasons stated above, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action. By incorporation and because no additional amendments have been made to the dependent claims, they likewise remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 as stated in this action.
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, 3-16 and 18 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 2-15 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:
setting, …, a prediction target region in a part of a region of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, the prediction target region being a computational region extracted as a partial region of a shot region for reducing computation cost in the simulating, wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to an appropriate subsection of a problem space by which to make predictions upon. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by having an image of the problem space and drawing a boundary around the area of interest for limiting predictions within. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between the boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a positional relationship between a boundary of the prediction target region and each specified droplet. This evaluation can be performed by a human in the mind using observations and judgements, as well as using 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. Furthermore, this claim includes the recitation of determining a volume, which is a numeric representation of matter in 3-dimensional space and involves mathematical calculations to derive.
wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside of the prediction target region. This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a computation model in a problem space with given assumptions. And further entails using the determined volume to compensate for erroneous solutions in the evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a problem space can be evaluated using pen and paper with while accounting for the assumptions of droplet spread not exceeding the prediction target region and then any erroneous evaluations may be subject to further evaluation with respect to the determined volumes. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, reducing an error is the recitation of a mathematical calculation, wherein the error is a quantified value and a reduction is applied to the value. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
predicting the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating and observing the volume of each of the plurality of specific droplets to create a judgment on anticipated behavior of the curable composition and subsequently use the judgement to make a decision on how an initial volume is to be modified. 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.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
simulating, by a computer with a processor and a memory, to predict a behavior of the curable composition in the film forming process, wherein the simulating includes:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of computers as a tool to perform a mental process
by the computer – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer
dispensing, by a dispenser, the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely amounting to the words “apply it” with regard for the value obtained as part of the abstract idea
executing the film forming process, in accordance with the dispensed arrangement of the plurality of droplets determined based on the simulating,- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely amounting to the words “Apply it” with regard for the value obtained as part of the abstract idea
The courts have found that Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))) does not 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, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and so no further evaluation is required to determine if the additional elements are beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional 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.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The courts have found that adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer 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 claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. 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 16:
Step 1: Claim 16 is directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
set a prediction target region in a part of a region of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, the prediction target region being a computational region extracted as a partial region of a shot region for reducing computation cost in the simulating, wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to an appropriate subsection of a problem space by which to make predictions upon. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by having an image of the problem space and drawing a boundary around the area of interest for limiting predictions within. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determine a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between the boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a positional relationship, represented as an index, between a boundary of the prediction target region and each specified droplet. This evaluation can be performed by a human in the mind using observations and judgements, as well as using 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. Furthermore, this claim includes the recitation of determining a volume, which is a numeric representation of matter in 3-dimensional space and involves mathematical calculations to derive. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region; and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a computation model in a problem space with given assumptions. And further entails using the determined volume to compensate for erroneous solutions in the evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a problem space can be evaluated using pen and paper with while accounting for the assumptions of droplet spread not exceeding the prediction target region and then any erroneous evaluations may be subject to further evaluation with respect to the determined volumes. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, reducing an error is the recitation of a mathematical calculation, wherein the error is a quantified value and a reduction is applied to the value. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
predict the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating and observing the volume of each of the plurality of specific droplets to create a judgment on anticipated behavior of the curable composition. 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.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
a simulation apparatus configured to simulate to predict a behavior of the curable composition in the film forming process; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
a film forming apparatus configured to execute the film forming process,- This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
wherein the simulation apparatus includes: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the film forming apparatus includes a dispenser configured to dispense the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the film forming apparatus is configured to execute the film forming process in accordance with the dispensed arrangement of the plurality of droplets determined based on the simulating.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
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 (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) 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, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore no further evaluation is required to determine if the elements amount to well-understood, routine and conventional 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.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment 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 claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. 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 18:
Step 1: Claim 18 is directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
setting, …, a prediction target region in a part of a region of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, the prediction target region being a computational region extracted as a partial region of a shot region for reducing computation cost in the simulating, wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a judgement as to an appropriate subsection of a problem space by which to make predictions upon. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example by having an image of the problem space and drawing a boundary around the area of interest for limiting predictions within. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between the boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a positional relationship, represented as an index, between a boundary of the prediction target region and each specified droplet. This evaluation can be performed by a human in the mind using observations and judgements, as well as using 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. Furthermore, this claim includes the recitation of determining a volume, which is a numeric representation of matter in 3-dimensional space and involves mathematical calculations to derive. Therefore, this claim also includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region; and This claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a computation model in a problem space with given assumptions. And further entails using the determined volume to compensate for erroneous solutions in the evaluation. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. For example, a problem space can be evaluated using pen and paper with while accounting for the assumptions of droplet spread not exceeding the prediction target region and then any erroneous evaluations may be subject to further evaluation with respect to the determined volumes. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, reducing an error is the recitation of a mathematical calculation, wherein the error is a quantified value and a reduction is applied to the value. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
predicting the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating and observing the volume of each of the plurality of specific droplets to create a judgment on anticipated behavior of the curable composition. 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.
determining a process condition for the film forming process, based on a result of the simulating. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the simulation results to make a judgement for a process condition for the film forming process. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
simulating, by a computer with a processor and a memory, to predict a behavior of the curable composition in a film forming process, which includes arranging the curable composition as a plurality of droplets on a first member and bringing a second member into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member to form a film of the curable composition between the first member and the second member, wherein the simulating includes:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for invoking the use of generic computing components as a tool to perform the mental process.
by the computer – This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer
dispensing, by a dispenser, the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for merely amounting to the words “apply it” with regard to the value obtained as part of the judicial exception.
executing the film-forming process according to the determined process condition., to manufacture the article.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) for amounting to a generic recitation of “apply it” with regard to the value obtained as part of the abstract idea
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 (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) 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, no additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore no further evaluation is required to determine if the elements amount to well-understood, routine and conventional 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.
The additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment 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 claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. 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.
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 additionally recites the limitation the behavior of the curable composition is predicted by assuming that each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region in the film forming process., which can reasonably be read to entail using assumptions about droplet spread to predict behavior of the curable composition. 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.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 2 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
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 additionally recites the limitation wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by using, as the index, a positional relationship between a spread distribution indicating a spread by the film forming process and the boundary of the prediction target region., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a volume quantity using an index representative of a positional relationship. 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. Further, this claim include the recitation of determining a volume which includes mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 3 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
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 additionally recites the limitation 3, wherein in a case where a droplet spread boundary that is a boundary to which each of the plurality of specific droplets is allowed to spread is included in the prediction target region, the volume is determined by further using, as the index, a positional relationship between the droplet spread boundary and each specific droplet., which can reasonably be read to entail observing droplet spread to see if it is included in the prediction target region and subsequently determining the volume using the index. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Additionally, this claim includes the limitation of determining a volume which is a numeric value and involves mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 4 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
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 additionally recites the limitation the initial volume is adjusted by multiplying the initial volume by a ratio of an area of a target distribution to an area of the spread distribution, and , which can reasonably be read to entail multiplying a volume by a ratio, which is the recitation of the mathematical calculation of multiplication. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Additionally, this mathematic process can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation the target distribution is a range in which one specific droplet spreads inside the prediction target region. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the 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 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 additionally recites the limitation the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by multiplying the initial volume by a ratio of an area of a target distribution to an area of the spread distribution, and , which can reasonably be read to entail multiplying a volume by a ratio, which is the recitation of the mathematical calculation of multiplication. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Additionally, this mathematic process can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation the target distribution is a range in which one specific droplet should spread spreads inside the prediction target region. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the 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 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 additionally recites the limitation wherein with respect to a specific droplet having the target distribution that is in contact with the droplet spread boundary but is not contact with the boundary of the prediction target region, among the plurality of specific droplets, the volume is not adjusted, which can reasonably be read to entail observing and evaluating a specific droplet to make a judgement on the contact so as to inform the decision to not adjust the volume. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: This claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the 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 spread distribution is obtained as a unit cell in a Voronoi diagram obtained by segmenting the prediction target region using each of the plurality of droplets as a generatrix., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating a spread distribution using a Voronoi diagram. 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. Furthermore, and particularly when read in light of the specification [0048-0049], the generation of the Voronoi diagram includes mathematical calculations on the generatrix. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 8 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 8 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, 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 9 additionally recites the limitation wherein the spread distribution is obtained based on an interval between the first member and the second member when the second member is brought into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member in the film forming process., which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating an interval to determine the spread distribution of the curable composition. 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. Further, and particularly when read in light of the specification ([0062]), the use of the interval pertains to a mathematical calculation to derive the distribution. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 9 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, 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 10 additionally recites the limitation wherein a position of a specific droplet, among the plurality of droplets, whose volume has been adjusted is moved to a center of gravity of the target distribution., which can reasonably be read to entail observing the specific droplet with corrected volume and identifying a location for the droplet to be moved based on the target distribution. 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.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 10 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
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 additionally recites the limitation a position of a specific droplet having the target distribution in contact with both the boundary of the prediction target region and the droplet spread boundary, among the plurality of specific droplets, is moved to an intersection point between a first auxiliary line and a second auxiliary line, which can reasonably be read to entail observing the specific droplet with regard for contact of boundaries and identifying a location for the droplet to be moved based on the observations. 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.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation the first auxiliary line is parallel to the droplet spread boundary and passes through the specific droplet, and and the second auxiliary line is perpendicular to the droplet spread boundary and passes through a center of gravity of the target distribution. These limitations have been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because they further describe the particular technological environment regarding the execution of the judicial exception. 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 technical 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 additionally recites the limitation wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by using, as the index, a distance from the boundary of the prediction target region which can reasonably be read to entail using a distance value as an index to evaluate the volume of specific droplets. 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. Furthermore, the determination of a volume using a distance value is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 12 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 12 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
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 additionally recites the limitation wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality to specific droplets so as to be reduced with a decrease in the distance, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating decreased distance so as to inform the reduction of a volumetric value. 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. Furthermore, this relationship between numeric values of distance and volume is additionally the recitation of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 13 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 13 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, 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 14 additionally recites the limitation wherein the volume for a specific droplet, among the plurality of specific droplets, which is located at the distance less than a threshold is determined to be zero, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating and observing the distance of a droplet placement with respect to a threshold in order to inform a judgment as to whether the volume should be zero. 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. Furthermore, the evaluation of a distance with respect to a threshold is the recitation of a mathematical relationship and is therefore the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 14 does not recite any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 14 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception(s).
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, 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 15 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method according to claim 1. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea 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 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schumaker (US Patent No. US 8,586,126, B2), hereinafter referred to as Schumaker.
Regarding claim 1, Schumaker discloses A method of controlling a film forming process, which includes arranging a curable composition as a plurality of droplets on a first member and bringing a second member into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member to form a film of the curable composition between the first member and the second member, the method comprising: A process is depicted in Figure 3 describing the procedure of creating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography wherein a fluid drop pattern is arranged and adjusted, fluid is applied to a substrate according to the pattern and the fluid is spread via a template so as to form a patterned film layer on a substrate ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-59) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308. Block 308 solidifies the fluid to form a patterned layer on the substrate. The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light."). The patterning process is described as applied the formable liquid between the template and the substrate, as a first and second member between which the curable composition creates the film ((Schumaker, Col 1, Lines 43-50) "The substrate may be coupled to a motion stage to obtain a desired positioning to facilitate the patterning process. The patterning process uses a template spaced-apart from the substrate and a formable liquid applied between the template and the substrate. The formable liquid is solidified to form a rigid layer that has a pattern conforming to a shape of the surface of the template that contacts the formable liquid.")
simulating, by a computer with a processor and a memory, to predict a behavior of the curable composition in the film forming process, wherein the simulating includes: A system is described as including a processor and memory on a computer ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) "System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56."). Drops of fluid are simulated on features of the substrate during drop placement optimization for the imprint lithography process ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-9) "Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features. Block 806 optimizes drop placement"). The simulation is further utilized to evaluate the crossing of a fluid drop over the edge of an edge map as the behavior prediction of the curable composition ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 1-7) " When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale
factor."). Likely flow for each drop location is analyzed as part of the simulation as a prediction ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop o generator location.")
setting, by the computer, a prediction target region A selected imprint area (set prediction target region) is described as the basis for a fluid map that informs the generation of a fluid drop pattern ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 13-15) " FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting the process 304 of generating a fluid drop pattern from a fluid map for a selected imprint area."). Features of interest are determined as part of a computational analysis method, thereby indicating that the identified features are set by the computer ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 16-19) "Other analysis methods ( e.g. spectral clustering), may also be used to find features of interest in the fluid map and then have those other algorithms assess where to place drops to fill those features.") in a part of a region The fluid map is representative of a local fluid volume needed, thereby indicating that the map considers a partial region of the surface for imprinting ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 5-8) " Block 406 forms a map of the fluid distribution (e.g., a fluid map representing local fluid volume needed) that will allow successful replication of the imprinting surface in an imprint lithography process."); ((Schumaker, Col. 6, Lines 63-66) " Block 404 determines the local fluid volume needed to fill the assessed features of the imprinting surface and to form a residual layer of the desired thickness"). of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, The fluid map is representative of the fluid drop pattern to be placed on the substrate and includes regions indicative of features corresponding to the imprinting surface (part of a region of the first member where the curable composition is arranged) ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 51-57) "FIG. 7 shows fluid map 700, with a single drop pattern 702 generated by a CVT process. Fluid map 700 includes nine substantially similar cells, with shaded regions indicating features 704 in the imprinting surface. Other regions of the fluid map correspond to substantially unpatterned regions of the imprinting surface, and require an effective amount of fluid to form the desired residual layer") the prediction target region being a computational region When read in light of the specification (¶36), the prediction target region is the region by which prediction/simulation is performed. The features on the fluid map are the basis for theoretical placement and simulation ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features.") extracted as a partial region Features used for optimizing drop placement are identified through rules (extracted) from the fluid map (See Figure 8); ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 located features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates drops on features."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 50-54) "The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature. As described above, the first rule set r1 is used to identify features, or conversely to discard unwanted features.") of a shot region Successive imprinting may leverage the drop patterns for features derived from the fluid maps, wherein each successive imprint is understood to be indicative of a singular contact cycle (shot) ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 25-39) " The single drop pattern generated in the centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) process may be used to form additional drop patterns, each of which may be used independently ( e.g., in a random or selected order during successive fabrication steps) to provide desired coverage of an imprinting surface. For example, a single drop pattern may be duplicated and translated a distance a first direction. Block 508 shifts the single fluid drop pattern to form a set of shifted single drop patterns. Multiple shifted drop patterns can be formed by duplicating and translating the single drop pattern in one or more additional directions ( e.g., a second, third, or fourth direction). The shifted drop patterns may then be superimposed to form a multiple drop pattern 510, retaining the association of each drop with the drop pattern from which it originated.") for reducing computation cost in the simulating, Features are identified and discarded according to the computational requirements, wherein some features are handled according to a standard optimization routine and others may be subject to a more robust and comprehensive optimization ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 54-57) " Features that are likely to be discarded may include those that are too small and may be safely ignored, or those that are too large and may be best handled by the standard optimization routine."); ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 13-21) " In some cases, the distance (norm) function of the optimization routine may be modified to take into account template features. This covers the rotated elliptical Voronoi regions and the volume transition weighting. Other analysis methods ( e.g. spectral clustering), may also be used to find features of interest in the fluid map and then have those other algorithms 20 assess where to place drops to fill those features. The optimization routine may then be used to optimize the locations of the remaining drops around those specified locations.") wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; The features may be defined by a bounding box that informs the rules for computation ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 47-52) " In placing the drops on features 804, statistics such as total voxel area, bounding box area, total volume, aspect ratio, etc. can be calculated for each feature. Rules can refer to these statistics of the feature. The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 59-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.")
determining a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between the boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet, Regions of interest (prediction target region) of a fluid map can be identified in which droplets are arranged inside of the regions. The regions may be recessed from other regions on the substrate, indicating a physical boundary of the region ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-9) " FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602."). Patterned imprinting surfaces, such as with recessed regions, affect the flow (behavior) of the liquid ((Schumaker, Col 13, lines 6-11) "The presence of strong directionally dominant features on the template can affect the flow of the liquid. As described above, the fluid flow was considered to be symmetric, i.e. to flow radially outward from the generator location in all directions equally, appearing as a growing disc from a top view. In some cases, however, template features inhibit symmetrical flow."). Edges of the fluid map (boundary of the prediction target region) are located to create an edge map ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 61-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed. Thresholds are applied to the edge map."). When a fluid drop crosses the edge of the edge map (positional relationship between boundary of predicted target region and each droplet), a weight associated with the transition (index) is used to create an adjusted scale factor to correct the distance in a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 2-10) "When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram."). The corrected fluid map contains volumetric pixels/voxels that represent the volume of the droplet contained within a cell, and therefore the volume for each droplet can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). Likely flow of fluid drops can subsequently be determined (predicting the behavior) by utilizing the information contained within the fluid map to include volume, as stated previously ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region; and Volume correction factors may be determined as part of an optimization scheme to compensate for the drop pattern synthesis scheme (computation model) that assumes ideal/perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations which may vary from actual dispensing/placement/ etc. ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 62-67 and Col 6 Lines 1-3) "In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations. In certain embodiments, however, an optimization method may include correction for factors such as, for example, variation in the actual drop placement locations due to errors in the electro-mechanical dispense system, variation in drop volume due to variability in the fluid dispenser, and the like. These volume variations may be further affected by variations in the ambient environment."); ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-40) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location. Each dispenser has an ideal volume v,deaz, however the effective dispensed volume may be different. The variations are due to assembly and machining variations in the dispenser itself and evaporation of the fluid after it has been dispensed. The amount of evaporation, or volume loss, is related to the chemical composition of the fluid, localized air velocities, and the spatial distribution of the fluid on the wafer. These effects can be modeled and corrected for by applying a volume transformation function f to the fluid map. In some cases, this function is an identity transform. In a simple transform, f applies a scalar correction to requested volume"). A rule is applied to the fluid map to remove non-convex features, wherein a non-convex feature would be indicative of a droplet spread exceeding the edge boundary of the fluid map, thereby indicating that the computational model does not consider droplets existing beyond the boundary of each feature ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 15-31) "3. Apply a second rule set rnc to identify non-convex features Lnc =rncCLz) such that Lz=LCULnc 4. For each non-convex feature in Lnc i. Try to split the feature into convex sub-features L,ub =ncut(Lnc) ii. Apply rz to Ls to find Lsubz L,ubz =rz(L,ub) iii. Apply rnc again to identify non-convex features. Repeat steps i. and ii. until all features are convex iv. Append the new set of convex sub-features to set of all convex features"); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 58-64) "The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature. If a feature is deemed nonconcave then it is recursively segmented using a normalized cut version of spectral clustering until all segments or subfeatures are concave"). The regions contain bounding areas of the feature, wherein droplet spread behavior is contained within ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 29-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.").
predicting the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets; Likely flow of fluid drops can be determined (predicting behavior) by utilizing a weighting matrix for a fluid map such as a Voronoi diagram ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). The fluid drops may be a polymerizable material which solidifies upon exposure to UV (curable composition) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 58-59) " The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light."). A fluid map contains regions of interest (prediction target regions) that constrain droplets ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-14) "FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602. Initial drop locations 610 are evenly spaced. Optimization, or application of the modified Lloyd's method, yields optimized drop locations as shown in FIG. 6B below at 612, with an increased drop density in regions 604 and 606 and a reduced drop density in region 608 compared to the drop density in region 602."). A fluid map comprises a grid of volumetric pixels where the fluid volume is known for each grid location which each contains a single drop, so the volume can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). An initial volume is known for the droplets and volume weights are updated to achieve volume constraints ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 10-16) "For each generator in the power diagram, a distribution of cell volumes and cell centroids is estimated. Using these distributions, the volume weights and nominal generator locations are updated to achieve the volume constraints while reducing or minimizing possible variability.")
dispensing, by a dispenser, the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and Fluid is dispensed from the fluid dispense system onto the substrate, which may occur after desired volume is defined ((Schumaker, Col 2, Lines 60-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-2) "System 10 may further comprise a fluid dispense system 32. Fluid dispense system 32 may be used to deposit polymerizable material 34 on substrate 12. Polymerizable material 34 may be positioned upon substrate 12 using techniques such as drop dispense, spin-coating, dip coating, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), thin film deposition, thick film deposition, and/or the like. Polymerizable material 34 may be disposed upon substrate 12 before and/or after a desired volume is defined between mold 22 and substrate 12 depending on design considerations."). Desired volume is determined as part of the simulation to determine appropriate drop pattern ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 7-20) "The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram. FIG. 9 A shows a drop pattern (black dots) and corresponding Voronoi regions (white lines) calculated without volume weighting for a patterned surface. The darker areas of the patterned surface indicate regions of higher density. For example, the dark gray region requires more fluid per unit area to fill the features completely than the lighter gray regions. FIG. 9B shows a drop pattern and corresponding Voronoi regions calculated with volume transition weighting for the same patterned surface."); ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 60-67) "When a multiple drop pattern is not advantageous, a single drop pattern may be used, and the formation of shifted drop patterns is not necessary. Whether one drop pattern or multiple drop patterns are used, after iterations are complete, fluid is applied to a substrate 306 according to the selected fluid drop pattern, with each drop matched to an available ( e.g., the nearest available) fluid dispenser location, as determined during the iterative optimization process.")
executing the film forming process, in accordance with the dispensed arrangement of the plurality of droplets determined based on the simulating. ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-56) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308.")
Regarding claim 3, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein the volume determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by using, as the index, a positional relationship between a spread distribution indicating a spread by the film forming process and the boundary of the prediction target region. The volume for a fluid in a specified grid location (volume for each specific droplet) is defined as a volumetric pixel in a fluid map and can therefore be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). When read in light of the instant specification, a spread distribution may be a Voronoi cell in a Voronoi diagram ((Instant Specification, ¶48) "This embodiment can use, as a spread distribution 302, a unit cell (Voronoi cell) in a Voronoi diagram obtained by segmenting the prediction target region 207 using each of the plurality of droplets 209 arranged on the shot region SR as a generatrix."). As such, fluid cells (of a power/Voronoi diagram) define the area to which a droplet volume is distributed ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 11-16) "For each generator in the power diagram, a distribution of cell volumes and cell centroids is estimated. Using these distributions, the volume weights and nominal generator locations are updated to achieve the volume constraints while reducing or minimizing possible variability.").The drop pattern and corresponding fluid map may be analyzed during discrete changes of pattern density, where the imprinting process is taking place to fill the features (spread by the process) ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 59-92) " In some embodiments, a drop pattern may be calculated to include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density ( e.g. a change in depth of a feature to be filled with a polymerizable material) to allow rapid, even filling of features"). The fluid cells can be limited by bounded edges of the target region, as stated previously in the rejection of claim 1 pertaining to the features imprint surface and the edges can be represented as part of an edge map ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 62-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed."). When the spread of a droplet (spread distribution) crosses the edge of the edge map (boundary of the prediction target region) a scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition to create an adjusted scale factor (index representing positional relationship) which is subsequently used to correct the location of the centroid/generator of the fluid cell ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 1-9) "A line scan is performed from the generator coordinate to the fluid map voxel coordinate. When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance."). The centroid of the fluid cell is defined by the corrected distance and is used to create a Voronoi diagram or power diagram, wherein volume can be computed, as described previously ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 9-10) "The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram.").
Regarding claim 4, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 3, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein in a case where a droplet spread boundary that is a boundary to which each of the plurality of specific droplets is allowed to spread is included in the prediction target region, the volume is determined by further using, as the index, a positional relationship between the droplet spread boundary and each specific droplet. Rules can be imparted on features in a fluid cell map to account for areas where fluid is not allowed to spread (such that the fluid cell map only accounts for cells in a specified region) ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 53-64) " As described above, the first rule set r1 is used to identify features, or conversely to discard unwanted features. Features that are likely to be discarded may include those that are too small and may be safely ignored, or those that are too large and may be best handled by the standard optimization routine. The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature. If a feature is deemed nonconcave then it is recursively segmented using a normalized cut version of spectral clustering until all segments or subfeatures are concave."). Once the fluid map has been bounded by the rules (a case where droplet spread boundaries are included in the prediction target region), a centroidal Voronoi tessellation is performed, wherein each generator/droplet is placed as the centroid of its corresponding cell (positional relationship between cell edge/spread boundary and generator/specific droplet) ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 3-6) " Drop patterns with drop locations substantially aligned with the features may be calculated by methods including power centroidal Voronoi tessellation (PCVT). FIG. 8 is a flow chart of the process of PCVT 800."); ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 27-32) "Next, third rule set rs may be applied to the remaining features to determine the segmentation grid for the feature. The rules can be used to determine the grid that should be mapped onto the feature. A single drop is allocated to each grid location and is initially placed on the volume weighted centroid for that segment. This location is then snapped to a valid location in G and then added to the set of feature drops F."). The placement of the generator is used as the basis (index) for forming a Voronoi diagram and the fluid cells of the Voronoi diagram are used to determine the volume of each cell ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 9-12) "This diagram assumes that the drop centroids will be located at the specified generator locations. Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated.").
Regarding claim 5, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 3, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein the initial volume is adjusted by multiplying the initial volume by a ratio of an area of a target distribution to an area of the spread distribution, and Initial volumes for droplets can be known in advance ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 62-64) “In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations."). Initial volumes may undergo a correction process as part of finding the optimal power diagram ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 64-67 and Col 6 Lines 1-3) " In certain embodiments, however, an optimization method may include correction for factors such as, for example, variation in the actual drop placement locations due to errors in the electro-mechanical dispense system, variation in drop volume due to variability in the fluid dispenser, and the like. These volume variations may be further affected by variations in the ambient environment."). A weight value (ratio) is defined by an equation describing the relationship of drop volume function of the fluid map (area of spread distribution) compared to the ideal volume (area of target distribution) ((Schumaker, Col 5 Lines, 39-41) "One difference between the power diagram and the Voronoi diagram is that in the power diagram each generator location has an associated weight λ. At the start of the procedure the weights are initialized to 0.0 and are then updated according to equation (4) below: [[See equation 4]].") An initial fluid map is known and a series of steps for finding the optimal power diagram are executed, wherein the weight value is multiplied to each fluid map region until an optimal solution converges ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 5-26) "… a least-squares assignment problem, can be solved by finding the optimal power diagram. Solving this problem may comprise the following steps: 1. Determine the number of drops n needed to satisfy M where [[Equation- see reference]] 2. Select a starting subset P0 ofG such that n==IIP_0ll_0 3. Set l=0 then repeat until converged 1. Compute power diagram of P1 given map M 2. Set P'z+i to the volume weighted centroid of each region 3. Set to the snapped P1+1 locations of P'1+1 4. Increment I. Steps 1 and 3 above solve a relaxed version of the optimization problem by analyzing the problem in the continuous domain. Step 3 discretizes the continuous solution P' and generates a physically realizable solution P by enforcing the second constraint as shown in equation (3) above."). A power diagram cell volume can be calculated by applying the weight (described previously) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 11-14) "Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated. A weight is then updated based on how much the cell is over or under volume when compared to the ideal volume.")
the target distribution is a range in which one specific droplet spreads inside the prediction target region. A volume requirement defines the amount of fluid necessary to fill the features of the imprinting surface (spread inside the prediction target region) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 61-66) "Block 400 assesses the feature geometry of the imprinting surface. Block 402 deter mines the desired residual layer thickness 402. Block 404 determines the local fluid volume needed to fill the assessed features of the imprinting surface and to form a residual layer of the desired thickness"); ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 5-8) "Block 406 forms a map of the fluid distribution (e.g., a fluid map representing local fluid volume needed) that will allow successful replication of the imprinting surface in an imprint lithography process."). As stated previously, the target distribution is defined by the ideal volume of each droplet. The actual volume for a fluid cell (one specific droplet) can be evaluated against the ideal volume as being over or under volume, thereby indicating that the ideal volume is a quantifiable range ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 11-14) "Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated. A weight is then updated based on how much the cell is over or under volume when compared to the ideal volume.")
Regarding claim 6, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 4, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by multiplying the initial volume by a ratio of an area of a target distribution to an area of the spread distribution, and Initial volumes for droplets can be known in advance ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 62-64) “In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations."). A weight value (ratio) is defined by an equation describing the relationship of drop volume function of the fluid map (area of spread distribution) compared to the ideal volume (area of target distribution) ((Schumaker, Col 5 Lines, 39-41) "One difference between the power diagram and the Voronoi diagram is that in the power diagram each generator location has an associated weight λ. At the start of the procedure the weights are initialized to 0.0 and are then updated according to equation (4) below: [[See equation 4]].") An initial fluid map is known and a series of steps for finding the optimal power diagram are executed, wherein the weight value is multiplied to each fluid map region until an optimal solution converges ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 5-26) "… a least-squares assignment problem, can be solved by finding the optimal power diagram. Solving this problem may comprise the following steps: 1. Determine the number of drops n needed to satisfy M where [[Equation- see reference]] 2. Select a starting subset P0 ofG such that n==IIP_0ll_0 3. Set l=0 then repeat until converged 1. Compute power diagram of P1 given map M 2. Set P'z+i to the volume weighted centroid of each region 3. Set to the snapped P1+1 locations of P'1+1 4. Increment I. Steps 1 and 3 above solve a relaxed version of the optimization problem by analyzing the problem in the continuous domain. Step 3 discretizes the continuous solution P' and generates a physically realizable solution P by enforcing the second constraint as shown in equation (3) above.").A power diagram cell volume can be calculated by applying the weight (described previously) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 11-14) "Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated. A weight is then updated based on how much the cell is over or under volume when compared to the ideal volume.")
the target distribution is a range in which one specific droplet spreads inside the prediction target region. A volume requirement defines the amount of fluid necessary to fill the features of the imprinting surface (spread inside the prediction target region) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 61-66) "Block 400 assesses the feature geometry of the imprinting surface. Block 402 deter mines the desired residual layer thickness 402. Block 404 determines the local fluid volume needed to fill the assessed features of the imprinting surface and to form a residual layer of the desired thickness"); ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 5-8) "Block 406 forms a map of the fluid distribution (e.g., a fluid map representing local fluid volume needed) that will allow successful replication of the imprinting surface in an imprint lithography process."). As stated previously, the target distribution is defined by the ideal volume of each droplet. The actual volume for a fluid cell (one specific droplet) can be evaluated against the ideal volume as being over or under volume, thereby indicating that the ideal volume is a quantifiable range ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 11-14) "Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated. A weight is then updated based on how much the cell is over or under volume when compared to the ideal volume.")
Regarding claim 7, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 6, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein with respect to a specific droplet having the target distribution that is in contact with the droplet spread boundary but is not in contact with the boundary of the prediction target region, among the plurality of specific droplets, the volume is not adjusted. Droplets have a target distribution characterized by their corresponding cell, as stated previously. When droplet spread crosses the edges of the edge map (in contact with a boundary of the prediction target region), a weight associated with the transition is used to create an adjusted scale factor to correct the distance in a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 2-10) "When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram."). The corrected fluid map contains volumetric pixels/voxels that represent the volume of the droplet contained within a cell, and therefore the volume can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). Conversely, such distance correction is not applied unless the droplet spread crosses the edges of the edge map, and therefore the corresponding volume is not corrected when the droplet spread is not in contact with the edge of the edge map. Specifically, the scale factor is not adjusted and remains the default value of 1.0 and therefore the multiplication by the identify leaves the volume unchanged ((Schumaker, Col 13 Lines 65-67 and Col 14 Line 1) "A volume weight is calculated between each generator location and voxel. Calculating the volume weight includes initializing a scale factor (e.g., to 1.0).")
Regarding claim 8, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 3, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein the spread distribution is obtained as a unit cell in a Voronoi diagram obtained by segmenting the prediction target region using each of the plurality of droplets as a generatrix. A centroidal Voronoi tessellation generates a drop pattern, as depicted in Figure 7, as segmented regions within a region ((Schumaker, Col 2, Lines 10-12) "FIG. 7 shows a single drop pattern for a complex patterned region generated by a centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) process."). Drop centroids correspond to the generator locations of a Voronoi diagram, thereby indicating that the drops are the generatrices of the Voronoi diagram ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 4-10) In an optimization scheme that takes placement and/or volume variations into account, the inner loop of Step 3 above of the optimization method builds either a Voronoi diagram or a power diagram. Thus, many power diagrams are evaluated on the inner loop. Each evaluation represents a possible perturbation of the system. This diagram assumes that the drop centroids will be located at the specified generator locations."). The distribution (spread distribution) of cell volumes (unit cells) is estimated ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 33-34) "For each generator, a distribution of cell volumes and cell centroids is estimated").
Regarding claim 9, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 3, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein the spread distribution is obtained based on an interval between the first member and the second member when the second member is brought into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member in the film forming process. Polymerizable material droplets are placed on a substrate (first member) and a template (second member) makes contact (interval between the first member and second member) in order to induce spreading of the polymerizable material during an imprinting process ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 35-41) "One manner in which to locate the polymerizable material 34 between template 18 and substrate 12 may be by depositing a plurality of droplets of polymerizable material 34 on the surface 44 of substrate 12. Thereafter, polymerizable material 34 may be concurrently contacted by both template 18 and substrate 12, spreading polymerizable material 34 on the surface of substrate 12."). The spatial distribution (spread distribution) can be visualized using a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 41-44) "Given a fluid map M, a drop volume function f, and a set of possible drop locations G, a goal is to identify the places P, where Pc G, which should be used to place the drops to match the spatial volume distribution specified in M."). The drop pattern can be calculated (spread distribution obtained) to include the effect of discrete changes of pattern density during the imprinting process where the members make contact (based on interval) such that the features are filled ((Schumaker, Col 13, lines 59-62) “In some embodiments, a drop pattern may be calculated to include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density ( e.g., a change in depth of a feature to be filled with a polymerizable material) to allow rapid, even filling of features.").
Regarding claim 10, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 6, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses wherein a position of a specific droplet, among the plurality of droplets, whose volume has been adjusted is moved to a center of gravity of the target distribution. Volumes of drops can be corrected by using a volume transformation function applied to a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 4, 36-40) "These effects can be modeled and corrected for by applying a volume transformation function f to the fluid map. In some cases, this function is an identity transform. In a simple transform, f applies a scalar correction to requested volume"). Lloyd’s method can be employed during a volume-correction process, where creating a Voronoi diagram (which is a fluid map) of the drops includes moving the drop location to the centroid of each Voronoi region (target distribution) ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 38-50) "To allow for a substantially uniform drop volume in the fluid drop pattern, as required by some fluid applicators, while achieving the desired non-uniform volume distribution in the imprinting area, block 504 may perform a series of modified Lloyd's method iterations. Lloyd's method is described in "Random. Marks on Paper, Non-Photorealistic Rendering with Small Primitives," Adrian Secord, Master's Thesis, The University of British Columbia, October 2002, which is incorporated by reference herein. This method includes computing the Voronoi diagram of the generating points in the imprinting area, computing the centroid of each Voronoi region in the diagram, and moving each generating point to its centroid.")
Regarding claim 15, Schumaker discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a method according to claim 1. The system may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory, wherein the system includes the methodology of claim 1, as stated previously ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) "System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56.")
Regarding claim 16, Schumaker discloses A system that controls a film forming process, which includes arranging a curable composition as a plurality of droplets on a first member and brining a second member into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member to form a film of the curable composition between the first member and the second member, the system comprising: ((Schumaker, Col 2, Lines 60-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-14) " System 10 may further comprise a fluid dispense system 32. Fluid dispense system 32 may be used to deposit polymerizable material 34 on substrate 12. Polymerizable material 34 may be positioned upon substrate 12 using techniques such as drop dispense, spin-coating, dip coating, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), thin film deposition, thick film deposition, and/or the like. Polymerizable material 34 may be disposed upon substrate 12 before and/or after a desired volume is defined between mold 22 and substrate 12 depending on design considerations. Polymerizable material 34 may comprise a monomer mixture as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,157,036 and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0187339, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference. Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, system 10 may further comprise an energy source 38 coupled to direct energy 40 along path 42. Imprint head 30 and stage 16 may be configured to position template 18 and substrate 12 in superimposition with 10 path 42. System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. ")
a simulation apparatus configured to simulate to predict a behavior of the curable composition in the film forming process; and ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 3-9) " Drop patterns with drop locations substantially aligned with the features may be calculated by methods including power centroidal Voronoi tessellation (PCVT). FIG. 8 is a flow chart of the process of PCVT 800. Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features. Block 806 optimizes drop placement. "); ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) " System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. ").Likely flow is evaluated as part of the process, thereby indicating predicted behavior ((Schumaker, Col 13, lines 34-38) " Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location. ")
a film forming apparatus configured to execute the film forming process, wherein the simulation apparatus includes: ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 7-28) "Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, system 10 may further comprise an energy source 38 coupled to direct energy 40 along path 42. Imprint head 30 and stage 16 may be configured to position template 18 and substrate 12 in superimposition with path 42. System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. Either imprint head 30, stage 16, or both may vary a distance between mold 20 and substrate 12 to define a desired volume therebetween that is filled by polymerizable material 34. For example, imprint head 30 may apply a force to template 18 such that mold 20 contacts polymerizable material 34. After the desired volume is filled with polymerizable material 34, source 38 produces energy 40, e.g., broadband ultraviolet radiation, causing polymerizable material 34 to solidify and/or cross-link conforming to shape of a surface 44 of substrate 12 and patterning surface 22, defining a patterned layer 46 on substrate 12. Patterned layer 46 may comprise a residual layer 48 and a plurality of features shown as protrusions 50 and recessions 52, with protrusions 50 having thickness t1 and residual layer having a thickness t2. ")
a memory configured to store instructions; and ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) "System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. ")
a processor configured to execute the instruction stored in the memory to: ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) "System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. ")
set a prediction target region A selected imprint area (set prediction target region) is described as the basis for a fluid map that informs the generation of a fluid drop pattern ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 13-15) " FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting the process 304 of generating a fluid drop pattern from a fluid map for a selected imprint area."). in a part of a region The fluid map is representative of a local fluid volume needed, thereby indicating that the map considers a partial region of the surface for imprinting ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 5-8) " Block 406 forms a map of the fluid distribution (e.g., a fluid map representing local fluid volume needed) that will allow successful replication of the imprinting surface in an imprint lithography process."); ((Schumaker, Col. 6, Lines 63-66) " Block 404 determines the local fluid volume needed to fill the assessed features of the imprinting surface and to form a residual layer of the desired thickness"). of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, The fluid map is representative of the fluid drop pattern to be placed on the substrate and includes regions indicative of features corresponding to the imprinting surface (part of a region of the first member where the curable composition is arranged) ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 51-57) "FIG. 7 shows fluid map 700, with a single drop pattern 702 generated by a CVT process. Fluid map 700 includes nine substantially similar cells, with shaded regions indicating features 704 in the imprinting surface. Other regions of the fluid map correspond to substantially unpatterned regions of the imprinting surface, and require an effective amount of fluid to form the desired residual layer") the prediction target region being a computational region When read in light of the specification (¶36), the prediction target region is the region by which prediction/simulation is performed. The features on the fluid map are the basis for theoretical placement and simulation ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features.") extracted as a partial region Features used for optimizing drop placement are identified through rules (extracted) from the fluid map (See Figure 8); ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 located features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates drops on features."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 50-54) "The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature. As described above, the first rule set r1 is used to identify features, or conversely to discard unwanted features.") of a shot region Successive imprinting may leverage the drop patterns for features derived from the fluid maps, wherein each successive imprint is understood to be indicative of a singular contact cycle (shot) ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 25-39) " The single drop pattern generated in the centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) process may be used to form additional drop patterns, each of which may be used independently ( e.g., in a random or selected order during successive fabrication steps) to provide desired coverage of an imprinting surface. For example, a single drop pattern may be duplicated and translated a distance a first direction. Block 508 shifts the single fluid drop pattern to form a set of shifted single drop patterns. Multiple shifted drop patterns can be formed by duplicating and translating the single drop pattern in one or more additional directions ( e.g., a second, third, or fourth direction). The shifted drop patterns may then be superimposed to form a multiple drop pattern 510, retaining the association of each drop with the drop pattern from which it originated.") for reducing computation cost in the simulating, , Features are identified and discarded according to the computational requirements, wherein some features are handled according to a standard optimization routine and others may be subject to a more robust and comprehensive optimization ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 54-57) " Features that are likely to be discarded may include those that are too small and may be safely ignored, or those that are too large and may be best handled by the standard optimization routine."); ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 13-21) " In some cases, the distance (norm) function of the optimization routine may be modified to take into account template features. This covers the rotated elliptical Voronoi regions and the volume transition weighting. Other analysis methods ( e.g. spectral clustering), may also be used to find features of interest in the fluid map and then have those other algorithms 20 assess where to place drops to fill those features. The optimization routine may then be used to optimize the locations of the remaining drops around those specified locations.") wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; The features may be defined by a bounding box that informs the rules for computation ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 47-52) " In placing the drops on features 804, statistics such as total voxel area, bounding box area, total volume, aspect ratio, etc. can be calculated for each feature. Rules can refer to these statistics of the feature. The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 59-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.")
determine a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between a boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet, Regions of interest (prediction target region) of a fluid map can be identified in which droplets are arranged inside of the regions. The regions may be recessed from other regions on the substrate, indicating a physical boundary of the region ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-9) " FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602."). Patterned imprinting surfaces, such as with recessed regions, affect the flow (behavior) of the liquid ((Schumaker, Col 13, lines 6-11) "The presence of strong directionally dominant features on the template can affect the flow of the liquid. As described above, the fluid flow was considered to be symmetric, i.e. to flow radially outward from the generator location in all directions equally, appearing as a growing disc from a top view. In some cases, however, template features inhibit symmetrical flow."). Edges of the fluid map (boundary of the prediction target region) are located to create an edge map ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 61-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed. Thresholds are applied to the edge map."). When a fluid drop crosses the edge of the edge map (positional relationship between boundary of predicted target region and each droplet), a weight associated with the transition (index) is used to create an adjusted scale factor to correct the distance in a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 2-10) "When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram."). The corrected fluid map contains volumetric pixels/voxels that represent the volume of the droplet contained within a cell, and therefore the volume for each droplet can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). Likely flow of fluid drops can subsequently be determined (predicting the behavior) by utilizing the information contained within the fluid map to include volume, as stated previously ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region; and Volume correction factors may be determined as part of an optimization scheme to compensate for the drop pattern synthesis scheme (computation model) that assumes ideal/perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations which may vary from actual dispensing/placement/ etc. ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 62-67 and Col 6 Lines 1-3) "In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations. In certain embodiments, however, an optimization method may include correction for factors such as, for example, variation in the actual drop placement locations due to errors in the electro-mechanical dispense system, variation in drop volume due to variability in the fluid dispenser, and the like. These volume variations may be further affected by variations in the ambient environment."); ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-40) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location. Each dispenser has an ideal volume v,deaz, however the effective dispensed volume may be different. The variations are due to assembly and machining variations in the dispenser itself and evaporation of the fluid after it has been dispensed. The amount of evaporation, or volume loss, is related to the chemical composition of the fluid, localized air velocities, and the spatial distribution of the fluid on the wafer. These effects can be modeled and corrected for by applying a volume transformation function f to the fluid map. In some cases, this function is an identity transform. In a simple transform, f applies a scalar correction to requested volume"). A rule is applied to the fluid map to remove non-convex features, wherein a non-convex feature would be indicative of a droplet spread exceeding the edge boundary of the fluid map, thereby indicating that the computational model does not consider droplets existing beyond the boundary of each feature ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 15-31) "3. Apply a second rule set rnc to identify non-convex features Lnc =rncCLz) such that Lz=LCULnc 4. For each non-convex feature in Lnc i. Try to split the feature into convex sub-features L,ub =ncut(Lnc) ii. Apply rz to Ls to find Lsubz L,ubz =rz(L,ub) iii. Apply rnc again to identify non-convex features. Repeat steps i. and ii. until all features are convex iv. Append the new set of convex sub-features to set of all convex features"); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 58-64) "The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature. If a feature is deemed nonconcave then it is recursively segmented using a normalized cut version of spectral clustering until all segments or subfeatures are concave"). The regions contain bounding areas of the feature, wherein droplet spread behavior is contained within ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 29-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.").
predict the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets, Likely flow of fluid drops can be determined (predicting behavior) by utilizing a weighting matrix for a fluid map such as a Voronoi diagram ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). The fluid drops may be a polymerizable material which solidifies upon exposure to UV (curable composition) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 58-59) " The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light."). A fluid map contains regions of interest (prediction target regions) that constrain droplets ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-14) "FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602. Initial drop locations 610 are evenly spaced. Optimization, or application of the modified Lloyd's method, yields optimized drop locations as shown in FIG. 6B below at 612, with an increased drop density in regions 604 and 606 and a reduced drop density in region 608 compared to the drop density in region 602."). A fluid map comprises a grid of volumetric pixels where the fluid volume is known for each grid location which each contains a single drop, so the volume can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). An initial volume is known for the droplets and volume weights are updated to achieve volume constraints ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 10-16) "For each generator in the power diagram, a distribution of cell volumes and cell centroids is estimated. Using these distributions, the volume weights and nominal generator locations are updated to achieve the volume constraints while reducing or minimizing possible variability.")
wherein the film forming apparatus includes a dispenser configured to dispense the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and The system includes a dispense hardware component that employs a dispense strategy ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines, 20-25) " As used herein, "drop location" is an x,y coordinate in a Cartesian plane R 2. The set of available locations G is determined by the dispense hardware and the dispensing strategy. The dispensing strategy encompasses the number of physical dispensers, or heads, in the system and the number of stage passes allowed. "). An optimization scheme (as the simulation) is leveraged to determine placement and volume of droplets for dispense ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 4-15) " In an optimization scheme that takes placement and/or volume variations into account, the inner loop of Step 3 above of the optimization method builds either a Voronoi diagram or a power diagram. Thus, many power diagrams are evaluated on the inner loop. Each evaluation represents a possible perturbation of the system. This diagram assumes that the drop centroids will be located at the specified generator locations. Next, the volume of each Voronoi or power diagram cell is calculated. A weight is then updated based on how much the cell is over or under volume when compared to the ideal volume. However, the actual drop placement location, volume, or both may vary from the ideal during dispensation. ")
wherein the film forming apparatus is configured to execute the film forming process in accordance with the dispensed arrangement of the plurality of droplets determined based on the simulating. A series of modified Lloyd’s method iterations are performed to optimize the volume distribution on an imprinting area, wherein the volume of the drops are chosen to fill the fluid map cells ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 25-42) " When the fluid map represents a substantially uniform volume distribution (e.g., the imprinting surface is substantially "unpatterned," or without intentional protrusions and recesses), the fluid volume associated with each fluid map cell can be substantially the same. When the fluid map represents a non-uniform volume distribution (e.g., the imprinting surface is "patterned," or with intentional protrusions and recesses), however, fluid volume associated with a fluid map cell may vary based upon the features of the imprinting surface associated with the cell. In this case, the volume of the theoretical drop chosen to fill the fluid map cell may vary based upon the features of the imprinting surface associated with the cell and the size of the cell. To allow for a substantially uniform drop volume in the fluid drop pattern, as required by some fluid applicators, while achieving the desired non-uniform volume distribution in the imprinting area, block 504 may perform a series of modified Lloyd's method iterations. "). Fluid is dispensed by the dispense system according to desired volume definitions, which may be obtained as part of the optimization process ((Schumaker, Col 2, Lines 60-67) " System 10 may further comprise a fluid dispense system 32. Fluid dispense system 32 may be used to deposit polymerizable material 34 on substrate 12. Polymerizable material 34 may be positioned upon substrate 12 using techniques such as drop dispense, spin-coating, dip coating, chemical 65 vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), thin film deposition, thick film deposition, and/or the like. Polymerizable material 34 may be disposed upon substrate 12 before and/or after a desired volume is defined between mold 22 and substrate 12 depending on design considerations. Polymerizable material 34 may comprise a monomer mixture "); ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 1-2) " System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56. ")
Regarding claim 18, Schumaker discloses A method of manufacturing an article, the method comprising: A process is depicted in Figure 3 describing the procedure of creating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography wherein a fluid drop pattern is arranged and adjusted, fluid is applied to a substrate according to the pattern and the fluid is spread via a template so as to form a patterned film layer on a substrate ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-59) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308. Block 308 solidifies the fluid to form a patterned layer on the substrate. The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light.").
simulating, by a computer with a processor and a memory, to predict a behavior of the curable composition in a film forming process, which includes arranging the curable composition as a plurality of droplets on a first member and bringing a second member into contact with the plurality of droplets on the first member to form a film of the curable composition between the first member and the second member, wherein the simulating includes: A process is depicted in Figure 3 describing the procedure of creating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography wherein a fluid drop pattern is arranged and adjusted, fluid is applied to a substrate according to the pattern and the fluid is spread via a template so as to form a patterned film layer on a substrate ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-59) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308. Block 308 solidifies the fluid to form a patterned layer on the substrate. The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light."). The patterning process is described as applied the formable liquid between the template and the substrate, as a first and second member between which the curable composition creates the film ((Schumaker, Col 1, Lines 43-50) "The substrate may be coupled to a motion stage to obtain a desired positioning to facilitate the patterning process. The patterning process uses a template spaced-apart from the substrate and a formable liquid applied between the template and the substrate. The formable liquid is solidified to form a rigid layer that has a pattern conforming to a shape of the surface of the template that contacts the formable liquid."). A system is described as including a processor and memory on a computer ((Schumaker, Col 3, Lines 11-14) "System 10 may be regulated by a processor 54 in communication with stage 16, imprint head 30, fluid dispense system 32, and/or source 38, and may operate on a computer readable program stored in memory 56."). Drops of fluid are simulated on features of the substrate during drop placement optimization for the imprint lithography process ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-9) "Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features. Block 806 optimizes drop placement"). The simulation is further utilized to evaluate the crossing of a fluid drop over the edge of an edge map as the behavior prediction of the curable composition ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 1-7) " When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor."). Likely flow for each drop location is analyzed as part of the simulation as a prediction ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop o generator location.")
setting, by the computer, a prediction target region A selected imprint area (set prediction target region) is described as the basis for a fluid map that informs the generation of a fluid drop pattern ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 13-15) " FIG. 5 is a flow chart depicting the process 304 of generating a fluid drop pattern from a fluid map for a selected imprint area."). Features of interest are determined as part of a computational analysis method, thereby indicating that the identified features are set by the computer ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 16-19) "Other analysis methods ( e.g. spectral clustering), may also be used to find features of interest in the fluid map and then have those other algorithms assess where to place drops to fill those features.") in a part of a region The fluid map is representative of a local fluid volume needed, thereby indicating that the map considers a partial region of the surface for imprinting ((Schumaker, Col 7, Lines 5-8) " Block 406 forms a map of the fluid distribution (e.g., a fluid map representing local fluid volume needed) that will allow successful replication of the imprinting surface in an imprint lithography process."); ((Schumaker, Col. 6, Lines 63-66) " Block 404 determines the local fluid volume needed to fill the assessed features of the imprinting surface and to form a residual layer of the desired thickness"). of the first member on which the curable composition is arranged, The fluid map is representative of the fluid drop pattern to be placed on the substrate and includes regions indicative of features corresponding to the imprinting surface (part of a region of the first member where the curable composition is arranged) ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 51-57) "FIG. 7 shows fluid map 700, with a single drop pattern 702 generated by a CVT process. Fluid map 700 includes nine substantially similar cells, with shaded regions indicating features 704 in the imprinting surface. Other regions of the fluid map correspond to substantially unpatterned regions of the imprinting surface, and require an effective amount of fluid to form the desired residual layer") the prediction target region being a computational region When read in light of the specification (¶36), the prediction target region is the region by which prediction/simulation is performed. The features on the fluid map are the basis for theoretical placement and simulation ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features.") extracted as a partial region Features used for optimizing drop placement are identified through rules (extracted) from the fluid map (See Figure 8); ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 6-8) " Block 802 located features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates drops on features."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 50-54) "The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature. As described above, the first rule set r1 is used to identify features, or conversely to discard unwanted features.") of a shot region Successive imprinting may leverage the drop patterns for features derived from the fluid maps, wherein each successive imprint is understood to be indicative of a singular contact cycle (shot) ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 25-39) " The single drop pattern generated in the centroidal Voronoi tessellation (CVT) process may be used to form additional drop patterns, each of which may be used independently ( e.g., in a random or selected order during successive fabrication steps) to provide desired coverage of an imprinting surface. For example, a single drop pattern may be duplicated and translated a distance a first direction. Block 508 shifts the single fluid drop pattern to form a set of shifted single drop patterns. Multiple shifted drop patterns can be formed by duplicating and translating the single drop pattern in one or more additional directions ( e.g., a second, third, or fourth direction). The shifted drop patterns may then be superimposed to form a multiple drop pattern 510, retaining the association of each drop with the drop pattern from which it originated.") for reducing computation cost in the simulating, Features are identified and discarded according to the computational requirements, wherein some features are handled according to a standard optimization routine and others may be subject to a more robust and comprehensive optimization ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 54-57) " Features that are likely to be discarded may include those that are too small and may be safely ignored, or those that are too large and may be best handled by the standard optimization routine."); ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 13-21) " In some cases, the distance (norm) function of the optimization routine may be modified to take into account template features. This covers the rotated elliptical Voronoi regions and the volume transition weighting. Other analysis methods ( e.g. spectral clustering), may also be used to find features of interest in the fluid map and then have those other algorithms 20 assess where to place drops to fill those features. The optimization routine may then be used to optimize the locations of the remaining drops around those specified locations.") wherein the prediction target region has a boundary that defines a limit of the computational region; The features may be defined by a bounding box that informs the rules for computation ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 47-52) " In placing the drops on features 804, statistics such as total voxel area, bounding box area, total volume, aspect ratio, etc. can be calculated for each feature. Rules can refer to these statistics of the feature. The user may then exclude or identify different features by writing a set of rules which are processed against each feature."); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 59-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.")
determining a volume used for predicting the behavior of the curable composition for each of a plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region, among the plurality of droplets, based on an index indicating a positional relationship between the boundary of the prediction target region and each specific droplet, Regions of interest (prediction target region) of a fluid map can be identified in which droplets are arranged inside of the regions. The regions may be recessed from other regions on the substrate, indicating a physical boundary of the region ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-9) " FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602."). Patterned imprinting surfaces, such as with recessed regions, affect the flow (behavior) of the liquid ((Schumaker, Col 13, lines 6-11) "The presence of strong directionally dominant features on the template can affect the flow of the liquid. As described above, the fluid flow was considered to be symmetric, i.e. to flow radially outward from the generator location in all directions equally, appearing as a growing disc from a top view. In some cases, however, template features inhibit symmetrical flow."). Edges of the fluid map (boundary of the prediction target region) are located to create an edge map ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 61-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed. Thresholds are applied to the edge map."). When a fluid drop crosses the edge of the edge map (positional relationship between boundary of predicted target region and each droplet), a weight associated with the transition (index) is used to create an adjusted scale factor to correct the distance in a fluid map ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 2-10) "When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram."). The corrected fluid map contains volumetric pixels/voxels that represent the volume of the droplet contained within a cell, and therefore the volume for each droplet can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). Likely flow of fluid drops can subsequently be determined (predicting the behavior) by utilizing the information contained within the fluid map to include volume, as stated previously ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). wherein the volume is determined to reduce computation errors caused by applying a computation model that assumes each of the plurality of specific droplets does not spread outside the boundary of the prediction target region; and Volume correction factors may be determined as part of an optimization scheme to compensate for the drop pattern synthesis scheme (computation model) that assumes ideal/perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations which may vary from actual dispensing/placement/ etc. ((Schumaker, Col 5, Lines 62-67 and Col 6 Lines 1-3) "In some embodiments, a drop pattern synthesis scheme assumes a perfect dispensed volume and drop placement at exact grid locations. In certain embodiments, however, an optimization method may include correction for factors such as, for example, variation in the actual drop placement locations due to errors in the electro-mechanical dispense system, variation in drop volume due to variability in the fluid dispenser, and the like. These volume variations may be further affected by variations in the ambient environment."); ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-40) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location. Each dispenser has an ideal volume v,deaz, however the effective dispensed volume may be different. The variations are due to assembly and machining variations in the dispenser itself and evaporation of the fluid after it has been dispensed. The amount of evaporation, or volume loss, is related to the chemical composition of the fluid, localized air velocities, and the spatial distribution of the fluid on the wafer. These effects can be modeled and corrected for by applying a volume transformation function f to the fluid map. In some cases, this function is an identity transform. In a simple transform, f applies a scalar correction to requested volume"). A rule is applied to the fluid map to remove non-convex features, wherein a non-convex feature would be indicative of a droplet spread exceeding the edge boundary of the fluid map, thereby indicating that the computational model does not consider droplets existing beyond the boundary of each feature ((Schumaker, Col 10, Lines 15-31) "3. Apply a second rule set rnc to identify non-convex features Lnc =rncCLz) such that Lz=LCULnc 4. For each non-convex feature in Lnc i. Try to split the feature into convex sub-features L,ub =ncut(Lnc) ii. Apply rz to Ls to find Lsubz L,ubz =rz(L,ub) iii. Apply rnc again to identify non-convex features. Repeat steps i. and ii. until all features are convex iv. Append the new set of convex sub-features to set of all convex features"); ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 58-64) "The second rule set rnc encodes a heuristic to determine non-convex features. This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature. If a feature is deemed nonconcave then it is recursively segmented using a normalized cut version of spectral clustering until all segments or subfeatures are concave"). The regions contain bounding areas of the feature, wherein droplet spread behavior is contained within ((Schumaker, Col 11, Lines 29-61) "This is typically done by comparing the number of voxels with volume to the total number of voxels in the bounding area of the feature.").
predicting the behavior of the curable composition inside the prediction target region by adjusting an initial volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets using the determined volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets; Likely flow of fluid drops can be determined (predicting behavior) by utilizing a weighting matrix for a fluid map such as a Voronoi diagram ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). The fluid drops may be a polymerizable material which solidifies upon exposure to UV (curable composition) ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 58-59) " The fluid may be, for example, a polymerizable material which solidifies upon application of ultraviolet light."). A fluid map contains regions of interest (prediction target regions) that constrain droplets ((Schumaker, Col 9, Lines 4-14) "FIG. 6A shows a representation of a fluid map 600. Within fluid map 600 are several regions: region 602 having a substantially uniform depth, region 604 which is recessed with respect to region 602, region 606 which is more deeply recessed with respect to region 602, and region 608 which protrudes with respect to region 602. Initial drop locations 610 are evenly spaced. Optimization, or application of the modified Lloyd's method, yields optimized drop locations as shown in FIG. 6B below at 612, with an increased drop density in regions 604 and 606 and a reduced drop density in region 608 compared to the drop density in region 602."). A fluid map comprises a grid of volumetric pixels where the fluid volume is known for each grid location which each contains a single drop, so the volume can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location."). An initial volume is known for the droplets and volume weights are updated to achieve volume constraints ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 10-16) "For each generator in the power diagram, a distribution of cell volumes and cell centroids is estimated. Using these distributions, the volume weights and nominal generator locations are updated to achieve the volume constraints while reducing or minimizing possible variability.")
determining a process condition for the film forming process, based on a result of the simulating; A fluid drop pattern is generated as an optimal solution for an imprinting process, as a condition for the manufacture, wherein the drop pattern is optimized as part of a simulation ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-56) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308."); ((Schumaker, Col 10 , Lines 3-8) "Drop patterns with drop locations substantially aligned with the features may be calculated by methods including power centroidal Voronoi tessellation (PCVT). FIG. 8 is a flow chart of the process of PCVT 800. Block 802 locates features in a fluid map. Block 804 theoretically places, or otherwise simulates, drops on features.")
dispensing, by a dispenser, the plurality of droplets on the first member based on the adjusted volume for each of the plurality of specific droplets inside the prediction target region in the simulating; and Fluid is dispensed from the fluid dispense system onto the substrate, which may occur after desired volume is defined ((Schumaker, Col 2, Lines 60-67 and Col 3, Lines 1-2) "System 10 may further comprise a fluid dispense system 32. Fluid dispense system 32 may be used to deposit polymerizable material 34 on substrate 12. Polymerizable material 34 may be positioned upon substrate 12 using techniques such as drop dispense, spin-coating, dip coating, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), thin film deposition, thick film deposition, and/or the like. Polymerizable material 34 may be disposed upon substrate 12 before and/or after a desired volume is defined between mold 22 and substrate 12 depending on design considerations."). Desired volume is determined as part of the simulation to determine appropriate drop pattern ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 7-20) "The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram. FIG. 9 A shows a drop pattern (black dots) and corresponding Voronoi regions (white lines) calculated without volume weighting for a patterned surface. The darker areas of the patterned surface indicate regions of higher density. For example, the dark gray region requires more fluid per unit area to fill the features completely than the lighter gray regions. FIG. 9B shows a drop pattern and corresponding Voronoi regions calculated with volume transition weighting for the same patterned surface."); ((Schumaker, Col 8, Lines 60-67) "When a multiple drop pattern is not advantageous, a single drop pattern may be used, and the formation of shifted drop patterns is not necessary. Whether one drop pattern or multiple drop patterns are used, after iterations are complete, fluid is applied to a substrate 306 according to the selected fluid drop pattern, with each drop matched to an available ( e.g., the nearest available) fluid dispenser location, as determined during the iterative optimization process.")
executing the film-forming process according to the determined process condition, to manufacture the article. ((Schumaker, Col 6, Lines 46-56) "FIG. 3 is a flow chart showing a process 300 of replicating an imprinting surface in imprint lithography. Block 302 generates a fluid map. Block 304 generates a fluid drop pattern. Generating the fluid drop pattern includes starting with an initial set of drop locations, factoring in considerations described above (e.g., drop dispenser locations), and adjusting theoretical drop locations to be compatible with this and other equipment constraints and to minimize, if not prevent, template effects such as surfactant buildup. Block 306 applies fluid to a substrate according to the fluid drop pattern. Block 307 contacts the fluid with a template to spread the fluid 308.")
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 12-14 are rejected under Schumaker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopez et al (Lopez, J., Hernandez, J., Gomez, P., and Faura, F., “VOFTools − A software package of calculation tools for volume of fluid methods using general convex grids”, 2018, Computer Physics Communications, Volume 223, pp 45-54, doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.032), hereinafter referred to as Lopez.
Regarding claim 12, Schumaker discloses The method according to claim 1, as stated previously. Schumaker further discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets by using, [[as the index, a distance from]] the boundary of the prediction target region. The edges of the fluid map (boundary of the predicted target region) are determined and a threshold is applied to the edges ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 62-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed. Thresholds are applied to the edge map.") When the threshold is crossed, a transition type is assessed and the scale factor of the fluid cell is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type and his adjusted scale factor yields a distance for the fluid cell (between the generator and voxel edge) that is used to create the Voronoi diagram or power diagram ((Schumaker, Col 14, Lines 1-11) "A line scan is performed from the generator coordinate to the fluid map voxel coordinate. When an edge in the edge map is crossed, the transition type (e.g., lower density to higher density, higher density to lower density) is assessed, and the scale factor is multiplied by a weight associated with the transition type to yield an adjusted scale factor. The distance from the generator to the voxel is calculated, and the distance is multiplied by the adjusted scale factor to yield a corrected distance. The corrected distance is used in building the Voronoi diagram or power diagram."). The fluid map derived from the diagram contains volumetric pixels/voxels that represent the volume of the droplet contained within a cell, and therefore the volume can be determined ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 26-29) "A fluid map M comprises a three-dimensional (3D) grid of voxels or volumetric pixels. Each element of the grid represents a two-dimensional location along the x,y coordinates as well as the fluid volume requirement for that grid location.").
Schumaker does not explicitly teach the utilization of a distance value from a boundary to calculate the volume of each specific droplet; however, Lopez teaches as the index, a distance from a boundary of the prediction target region A signed distance is described from the vertices of a polygon (omega) to a plane (P). ((Lopez, Page 46, Col 2, Section 2.2.1, ¶1) "The signed distance, φip , from every vertex, xip , of Ω to P is computed as φip = n ・ xip + C (line 1 in Algorithm 1). ")
Schumaker and Lopez are analogous arts because both are related to the modeling of fluids for predicting their behavior. Schumaker teaches the determination of a volume for each droplet as the volumetric pixels of the generated Voronoi diagram. Schumaker also teaches the utilization of a boundary for the prediction target region as the edge of an edge map and discloses a threshold is applied to the edge. While Schumaker discloses the crossing of a fluid cell with regard to the edge of a fluid map, Schumaker does not quantify the spatial difference of that crossing as a distance. Lopez teaches the concept of evaluating polyhedral vertices with respect to an intersecting plan (boundary) using a signed distance value (Phiφ) so as to truncate parts of the volume that are outside of the boundary. 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 combined the teachings of Lopez into the methodology disclosed by Schumaker because applying a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results would have led one having ordinary skill in the art to do so. Schumaker teaches the utilization of a physical model to determine where fluid will likely flow but does not disclose the particular physical model that is utilized ((Schumaker, Col 12, Lines 34-38) "Similarly the weighting matrix W, for each Voronoi region is generated through analysis of the template design, or by utilizing a physical model, to determine where the fluid will likely flow for each drop or generator location."). The Volume of Fluid (VOF) modeling methodology is commonly used in the art as a computational fluid dynamics technique used to track the interface between fluids such as droplets. Lopez discloses VOFTools as a software package for VOF methods, wherein truncation between a polytope and a half space is described and, in particular, the signed distance is discussed and demonstrated to provide predictable results with volume estimation when a volumetric element is imposed by a boundary. In knowing that the volumetric pixels of droplets are constrained by the physical boundaries of the features of the substrate in the method disclosed by Schumaker and in knowing that volume of fluid methods are often applied for predicting likely fluid flow, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize VOF tools which capable of successfully modeling volumes that are under the constraint of a boundary to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 12, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Lopez discloses wherein the volume is determined for each of the plurality of specific droplets so as to be reduced with a decrease in the distance. Volumetric truncation is described in terms of utilizing a signed distance value, wherein vertices contained within a boundary have a positive distance and vertices outside of the boundary have a negative distance. If the signed distance is less than or equal to the boundary intersection (decrease in the distance), that part of the volume is truncated (volume reduced) ((Lopez, Page 46, Col 2, Section 2.2.1, ¶1-2 through Page 47, Col 1, ¶1) "The signed distance, φip , from every vertex, xip , of Ω to P is computed as φip = n ・ xip + C (line 1 in Algorithm 1). Then, the array IA(ip) is initialized (line 2 in Algorithm 1) as 1, if φip > 0 (note that if the normal vector n points to xip the sign of φip will be positive), or 0 otherwise. Fig. 2 shows an example in which the black and white circles denote vertices with positive and negative φ values, respectively. The resulting truncated region ΩT will be defined by the vertices where the signed distance function is positive and the points of intersection between P and the edges of Ω.")
The arts are analogous as stated previously. 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 further modified the proposed combination of Schumaker and Lopez with the additional teachings of Lopez for the same reasons stated previously- applying a known technique to a known method to yield predictable results. In knowing that the feature regions of the substrate as taught by Schumaker impose physical bounds to where droplets can be placed and spread, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the truncation of volumes in the modeling of the droplets to accurately reflect and account for the physical limitations of the system. If using the VOF method of the proposed combination as stated in Claim 12 to model the fluids, applying the VOF tools taught by Lopez with the built in functionality of volume truncation would yield predictable modeling results. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be compelled to do so.
Regarding claim 14, the proposed combination discloses The method according to claim 12, as stated previously. The proposed combination in further view of Schumaker discloses (except the limitations surrounded by brackets ([[..]])) [[wherein the volume for a specific droplet, among the plurality of specific droplets, which is located at the distance less than]] a threshold [[is determined to be zero.]] ]]. An edge map of the fluid map contains threshold values ((Schumaker, Col 13, Lines 62-65) "To include the effect of discrete changes in pattern density in a fluid map, the edges in the fluid map are located and an edge map is formed. Thresholds are applied to the edge map.")
The proposed combination further in view of Lopez teaches wherein the volume for a specific droplet, among the plurality of specific droplets, which is located at the distance less than … is determined to be zero. Volumetric truncation is described in terms of utilizing a signed distance value, wherein vertices contained within a boundary have a positive distance and vertices outside of the boundary have a negative distance. If the signed distance is less than or equal to the boundary intersection, that part of the volume is truncated (determined to be zero) ((Lopez, Page 46, Col 2, Section 2.2.1, ¶1-2 through Page 47, Col 1, ¶1) "The signed distance, φip , from every vertex, xip , of Ω to P is computed as φip = n ・ xip + C (line 1 in Algorithm 1). Then, the array IA(ip) is initialized (line 2 in Algorithm 1) as 1, if φip > 0 (note that if the normal vector n points to xip the sign of φip will be positive), or 0 otherwise. Fig. 2 shows an example in which the black and white circles denote vertices with positive and negative φ values, respectively. The resulting truncated region ΩT will be defined by the vertices where the signed distance function is positive and the points of intersection between P and the edges of Ω.")
The arts are analogous as stated previously. 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 further modified the method of the proposed combination to incorporate the additional teachings of Lopez because Schumaker already teaches the utilization of a threshold with regard to the fluid map edges but does not explicitly say the threshold is used in conjunction with a quantified distance value. Rather, Schumaker notes that once the edge is crossed, additional analysis is done to determine the volume. The proposed combination, as stated in the rejection of Claim 12, utilizes an explicit distance value to quantify the distance from a boundary for volumetric truncation. 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 further modified the proposed combination with the additional teachings of the prior art because simple substitution of a known element for another to obtain predictable results would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to do so. Lopez teaches truncating a volume with respect to a physical boundary. Schumaker teaches utilizing a threshold to evaluate the crossing of a boundary. Thresholding is known in the art of modeling to provide some flexibility in estimations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having skill in the art to substitute the physical boundary of the fluid map edge for a thresholded edge to achieve predictable results of increased flexibility in modeling and estimating the behavior of the fluid volumes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art references are Schumaker, as referenced previously and Nguyen (Nguyen, H., Burkardt, J., Gunzburger, M., Ju, L., and Saka, Y., “Constrained CVT meshes and a comparison of triangular mesh generators”, 2009, Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, Volume 42, pp 1-19), hereinafter referred to as Nguyen. The references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record fail to disclose all of the limitations of Claim 11: The method according to claim 6, wherein
a position of a specific droplet having the target distribution in contact with both the boundary of the prediction target region and the droplet spread boundary, among the plurality of specific droplets, is moved to an intersection point between a first auxiliary line and a second auxiliary line,
the first auxiliary line is parallel to the droplet spread boundary and passes through the specific droplet, and
the second auxiliary line is perpendicular to the droplet spread boundary and passes through a center of gravity of the target distribution.
Schumaker teaches the method according to claim 6, as stated previously. Schumaker also teaches a position of a specific droplet ((Schumaker, Col 4, Lines 20-21) "As used herein, "drop location" is an x,y coordinate in a Cartesian plane R^2 ").
Schumaker further teaches having the target distribution, boundary of the prediction target region, and droplet spread boundary as stated previously. Schumaker does not teach moving the position of the specific droplet using a first auxiliary line and a second auxiliary line in the manner claimed.
Nguyen teaches performing a constrained centroidal Voronoi tessellation in which the centroid of the Voronoi cell for cells along the edge of a bounded domain are limited in how they can be moved so as to account for the boundary conditions. Nguyen teaches edge conditions for a constrained centroidal Voronoi tessellation, wherein cells along the boundary of a domain and in the corner of the domain are adjusted differently than those cells which do not contact the boundary (a position of a specific droplet having the target distribution in contact with both the boundary of the prediction target region and the droplet spread boundary, among the plurality of specific droplets) ((Nguyen, Page 4, ¶5) "The third CCVT we consider is one on which neither the number or positions of the points on the boundary are predetermined. For the sake of simplicity, we describe this approach for domains in R2. We again assume that the boundary Γ of Ω can be subdivided into J smooth disjoint segments Γj, j = 1,..., J, each of which can be specified as in (6). We assume that there are Mc ! 0 corners and that Γc = {z∗ m} Mc m=1 denotes the set of corner points. We label Vk, where {Vk}K k=1 is any tessellation of Ω, according to: Vk is a corner region if V k ∩ Γc %= ∅ Vk is a boundary region if V k ∩ Γj %= ∅ for a single j Vk is an interior region if V k ∩ Γ = ∅."). Nguyen particularly teaches an auxiliary line perpendicular to the edge of a Voronoi cell that passes through the center of mass (the second auxiliary line is perpendicular to the droplet spread boundary and passes through a center of gravity of the target distribution.) for aiding in the moved placement of a Voronoi cell’s centroid. Nguyen does not teach a first auxiliary line parallel to the edge of a Voronoi cell but rather teaches the boundary itself as the auxiliary line. Nguyen teaches the centroid is placed where the perpendicular auxiliary line meets the actual boundary (is moved to an intersection point between a first auxiliary line and a second auxiliary line) ((Nguyen, Page 6, ¶4) "Algorithm 1 (CCVT). Given a bounded, open domain Ω ⊂ R2, a density function ρ(x) defined for all x ∈ Ω, and a positive integer K, 0. select an initial set of K points {zi}K i=1 in Ω, e.g., by uniform random sampling or by sampling a superimposed equilateral triangular grid or by constructing an ordinary CVT; 1. construct the Voronoi tessellation {Vi}K i=1 of Ω associated with {zi}K i=1; 2. compute the (ordinary) mass centroids of the Voronoi regions {Vi} k i=1 found in step 1; 3. move the points {zi} k i=1 to the centroid positions; 4. determine the boundary and corner Voronoi regions; 5. if Vk is a boundary region, move zk to its projection onto the boundary Γ ; 6. if Vk is a corner region, move zk to the corner; 7. if the new points meet some convergence criterion, terminate; otherwise, return to step 1."). See also Nguyen Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
202
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No additional references were found that teach or would be found obvious to teach the entirety of the limitations of the claim. For the reasons stated above, the claimed subject matter is allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ghaffari et al (Ghaffari, M., and Xiao, S., “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics with Stress Points and Centroid Voronoi Tessellation (CVT) Topology Optimization”, 2016, International Journal of Computational Methods, Vol. 13, No. 6) discloses a smoothed particle hydrodynamics approach coupled with centroid Voronoi tessellation topology optimization as an approach to increase stability and accuracy of the SPH method in a given domain. Volumes are associated with SPH particles in approximations and the Voronoi tessellation is subsequently used to calculate a volume for each SPH particle. Topology optimization is employed to distribute particles uniformly both globally and locally, according to simulation requirements, wherein the points remain inside their corresponding regions during the optimization. The problem domain is defined according to different areas corresponding to different particle densities.
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
Prosecution Insights