Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/857,238

IMPRINT MOLD, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING REPRODUCED IMPRINT MOLD

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 05, 2022
Examiner
LEONG, SUSAN DANG
Art Unit
1754
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tohoku University
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
343 granted / 536 resolved
-1.0% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
548
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
§112
27.2%
-12.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 536 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claim Status Claims 1-2, 5-13, 16-23 are pending where claims 6-8 are withdrawn. The previous 112(a) rejection of claim 13 has been maintained as applicant did not submit a new set up claims to show that claim 13 has been canceled. Election/Restrictions Claims 1-2, 5, 9-12 and 16-23 are allowable. The restriction requirement between the product and the method, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/29/2023, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is maintained because the claims are directed to different statutory inventions and requires a different search strategy thus the allowance of claim 1 would not necessarily lead to the allowance of the method claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 13 recites “the coating layer is disposed on the synthetic quartz glass substrate so that the coating layer covers an entire surface of the synthetic quartz glass substrate, only on which the transfer pattern is formed”, however the applicant’s specification fails to reasonably convey, disclose, or describe, that the coating layer can be disposed only on the transfer pattern. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2, 5, 9-12 and 16-23 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, JP2009263815 (machine translation provided with this office action) discloses a template for imprinting (title) where the base is quartz ([0018]) having a transfer pattern formed on a surface there of (see pattern Fig. 1A), an aluminum oxide ([0072]) coating layer (first film 12) formed by ALD ([0020]) is formed on the pattern (Fig. 1A), where it is known in the art to utilize different materials for the coating layer from the substrate to improve releasability ([0068]). JP2009263815, however, does not explicitly disclose wherein a fracture strength of a portion of the transfer pattern where the coating layer is formed is higher than a fracture strength of the transfer pattern before the coating layer is formed and wherein the coating layer has a thickness of 50 nm or less, and the variation in thickness is within 10% of an average value of the thickness of the coating. Terasaki et al. (US 20090092791 A1) of record discloses an imprinting mold (abstract) where the thickness selected is capable of canceling stresses at the front surface and the rear surface ([0053]). The instant specification highlights that the fracture strength (Young’s modulus) [0104] of the instant invention is based on the shape and strength of the transfer fine pattern before forming the coating layer and it depends on certain conditions to ensure that there is no breakage in the pattern such that a reproduced imprint mold will have the desired fracture strength [0107]. Thus, Terasaki would not cure the deficiencies of JP2009263815. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant states that claim 13 is cancelled to render the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 moot, however in the claims filed 02/26/2025, claim 13 has not been indicated as cancelled. For the purpose of compact prosecution claim 13 has been examined. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, 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. /SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 05, 2022
Application Filed
May 11, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 24, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 06, 2023
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 13, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
May 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 01, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jul 03, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 04, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 04, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 25, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Dec 19, 2024
Interview Requested
Jan 14, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 26, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Nov 14, 2025
Notice of Allowance
Nov 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600062
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603338
ACTIVE MATERIAL RECOVERY METHOD USING POSITIVE ELECTRODE SCRAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575659
METHOD FOR FORMING A STICK FOR LIPS, A MACHINE FOR FORMING STICKS FOR LIPS, AND A PRODUCT FOR LIPS MADE USING THIS METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12512537
BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12512565
BATTERY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.4%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 536 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month