DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to applicant’s amendment of claim 1 and the addition of claim 20. Currently claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 11 and 20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The previous interpretation under 112(f) is withdrawn as applicant’s response that a person of ordinary skill would understand the structure required of an illumination system is persuasive. The term will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation as any structure that supplies light.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4, 6, 8, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (US 20160158998 A1) and in view of Tateyama et al. (US 5695817 A, hereinafter Tateyama).
Regarding claim 1, Chiba recites A molding apparatus (imprint apparatus of the first embodiment, see Fig. 1 and [0025]) comprising:
a dispenser (2) configured to apply a curable composition (imprint material 1) on a substrate (6) (dispenser 2 dispenses imprint material onto a substrate 2, wherein said imprint material is disclosed as a photo-curing composition, see [0027 and 0031]);
a mold holder (mold head 5) including a chuck (mold holding device 4) (see [0026] which discloses that the mold holding device 4 holds the mold 3 using vacuum attraction forces, wherein said mold holding device 4 is supported by the mold head 5);
an illumination system (40, see [0035] and Fig. 1) configured to cure the curable composition (1);
a second supply unit (see annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a nozzle (second supply nozzle, see annotated Fig. 1 below) configured to discharge a second gas ([0028 and 0031] teaches that a gas is supplied via a gas supply port 24 wherein said gas comprises of a permeable gas 22, and said permeable gas 22, such as nitrogen, is supplied via a valve 26 such that the gas which includes the permeable gas 22 is supplied to the imprint material 1. The annotated Fig. 1 below depicts that the permeable gas 22 is supplied to the valve 26 via a second supply nozzle);
PNG
media_image1.png
633
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chiba annotated Fig. 1
Chiba does not explicitly disclose that the first supply unit communicates with the dispenser configured to discharge, a first gas that decreases viscosity of the curable composition to mix the first gas with the curable composition in the dispenser.
In the same field of endeavor (processes for producing semiconductor devices, see [0004] of Chiba) Tateyama discloses an invention related to producing semiconductor wafers (see col. 37 ll. 62-67) where a resist solution nozzle 50 is connected to a resist solution tank 52 containing a resist solution, and through a resist solution supply tube 51, see col. 12 ll. 30-50. It should be noted that the resist solution tank 52 is analogous to the first supply unit of the instant application as it is communication with a dispenser (the resist solution nozzle 50). Nitrogen gas supplied to the resist tank can be used to control the discharge time by controlling the pressure of said nitrogen gas, see col. 13 ll. 10-20.
A POSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Chiba in view of Tateyama such that the dispenser of Chiba is in communication with a first supply unit (52) Tateyama through a resist solution supply tube 51 as taught by Tateyama in order to control the discharge time of curable composition (imprint material 1, Chiba) with gas pressure.
It should be noted that in the claim limitation “the dispenser being configured to discharge, a first gas that decreases viscosity of the curable composition” in lines 5-8, said first gas and curable composition refer to articles worked upon and do not further limit apparatus claims such as the molding apparatus in claim 1 of the instant application, see MPEP 2115.
Similarly, It should further be noted that in the claim limitation “nozzle configured to discharge a second gas that accelerates release of the first gas from the curable composition on the substrate” in lines 9-11, said second gas and curable composition refer to articles worked upon and do not further limit apparatus claims such as the molding apparatus in claim 1 of the instant application, see MPEP 2115.
Modified Chiba teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1 in the instant application, regarding the limitation “such that the first gas dissolves into the curable composition in the dispenser” is directed to a method (or process) of operating an apparatus in the instant application rather than being directed toward further structural limitation of said apparatus in the instant application. Thus, said limitation of the claim adds little or no patentable weight. However, the molding apparatus (imprint apparatus of the first embodiment, see Chiba Fig. 1 and [0025]) in the prior art is structurally capable of do the method (or process) in said limitation of the claim, as Modified Chiba discloses all of the structural elements such as a first supply unit (resist solution tank 52, see Tateyama col. 13 ll. 10-20) capable of storing a gas and resist, in communication with a dispenser (2, Chiba). The above rejection is fully addressing said portions of the claim, to the extent in which they are directed toward the structural limitations of apparatus in the instant application; See MPEP 2114.2.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Chiba teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 4, however the claim limitation “wherein the first gas contains at least one of hydrofluoroether and hydrofluorocarbon” in lines 1-2, said first gas containing at least one of hydrofluoroether and hydrofluorocarbon refer to articles worked upon and do not further limit apparatus claims such as the molding apparatus in claim 4 of the instant application, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Chiba discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 such as the first supply unit (resist solution tank 52, see Tateyama col. 13 ll. 10-20) in communication with a dispenser (2, Chiba).
Chiba teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 6 in the instant application, regarding the limitation “the first supply unit is configured to supply the first gas to the curable composition before being applied by the dispenser” is directed to a method (or process) of operating an apparatus in the instant application rather than being directed toward further structural limitation of said apparatus in the instant application. Thus, said limitation of the claim adds little or no patentable weight. However, the molding apparatus (imprint apparatus of the first embodiment, see chiba Fig. 1 and [0025]) in the prior art is structurally capable of do the method (or process) in said limitation of the claim, as Chiba discloses that the said molding apparatus (see Fig. 1 and [0025]) comprises the first supply unit (resist solution tank 52, see Tateyama col. 13 ll. 10-20) and dispenser (2, see chiba Fig. 1) which are structurally equivalent to the first supply unit and dispenser of the instant application respectively. The above rejection is fully addressing said portions of the claim, to the extent in which they are directed toward the structural limitations of apparatus in the instant application; See MPEP 2114.2.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Chiba recites the molding apparatus(imprint apparatus of the first embodiment, see Fig. 1 and [0025]) according to Claim 1, wherein the second gas (22) is an inert gas (nitrogen, see [0028]).
It should be noted that the limitation of claim 8 that recites “the second gas is one of inert gas, hydrogen, and air” refers to a second gas which is an article worked upon and thus does not further limit the claim 8 of the instant application, as claim 8 is an apparatus claim drawn to a molding apparatus, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 11 Modified Chiba recites the molding apparatus(imprint apparatus of the first embodiment, see Fig. 1 and [0025]) according to Claim 1, wherein the first supply unit (resist solution tank 52, see Tateyama col. 13 ll. 10-20) and the second supply unit (see annotated Fig. 1 above) are disposed in different processing areas separated from each other (the resist solution tank 52 and second supply unit are separate units and thus are inherently located in different processing areas).
Regarding claim 20, Modified Chiba as discussed above includes the structure necessary to supply gas to a material on a substrate. The particular order of operations in which the device is used does not structurally distinguish the device from the prior art. As Chiba provides a gas supply that supplies the second gas onto the substrate it is capable of performing the claimed intended use.
Claims 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiba (US 20160158998 A1) and in view of Tateyama et al. (US 5695817 A, hereinafter Tateyama) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Kawasaki (US 20190258158 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Chiba discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a mold holder (mold head 5, see Chiba [0026]) that holds the mold (3, see Chiba Fig. 1) (see [0026] which discloses that the mold holding device 4 holds the mold 3 using vacuum attraction forces, wherein said mold holding device 4 is supported by the mold head 5).
However, Chiba does not disclose mold (3, see Chiba Fig. 1) to comprise of a flat surface to planarize the substrate (21).
In an analogous art Kawasaki discloses a planarization apparatus (see abstract) wherein the mold 11 comprises of a planar portion 11a to conform imprint material to the surface shape of the substrate 1 see [0025].
A POSITA at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to further modify Chiba in view of Kawasaki such that the mold (3, see Chiba Fig. 1) is replaced with the mold (11, see Kawasaki) in order to conform imprint material to the surface shape of the substrate as taught by Kawasaki.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument that the structure of Chiba in view of Tateyama is silent with respect to the highlighted features of claim 1, this argument is not persuasive. The highlighted features of claim 1 are:
Wherein the first supply unit supplies a first gas that decreases viscosity of the curable composition in the dispenser to cause the first gas to dissolve into the curable composition in the dispenser, and wherein the second supply unit supplies, to the curable composition on the substrate, a second gas that releases the first gas from the curable composition on the substrate.
Chiba as discussed in the previous rejection and above includes structure required to supply a gas to a composition present on a substrate. Tateyama provides the structure necessary to supply a gas to a composition in a dispenser. Applicant’s argument appears to be with respect to the intended use of the gas and the particular materials (gases and resist composition) that are worked upon by the device. As discussed in the previous rejection and repeated above the intended use of the device and the materials worked upon do not structurally distinguish the device from the prior art. Applicant’s arguments do not address what structural difference is claimed in the first and second gas supply structure that is not taught and rendered obvious by the prior art. The argument is therefore not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743