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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 11/22/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-7, 10-13, 15-20, 22-27, 29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear how said optical metrology (that is performing optical metrology on said cured film and said substrate) is simultaneously performing optical metrology during formation of said non-uniform film. The examiner suggests adding language such as --also-- or --further comprising-- to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘399 (US 2017/0106399 A1) in view of ‘073 (WO 2018/027073 A1) in view of ‘674 (WO 2010/034674 A1).
Claims 1-2, 4-5:
‘399 teaches the PAINT process [0029] whereby droplets of UV curable liquid are ejected onto a substrate (Fig. 3A) followed by application of a superstrate to spread and merge the droplets into a non-uniform shape (Fig. 3B-3D), followed by curing (Fig. 3E) and removal of the superstrate (Fig. 3F). Although ‘399 does not explicitly state the formed object (cured film and substrate) is subjected to optical metrology, the process does include optical metrology (Fig. 6, the metrology tool 602) and it would have been obvious to check the formed object compared to the intended design to ensure the desired object with the desired properties was, in fact, formed.
The resulting object can be a corrector plate, which is a lens designed to be part of an optical system that corrects for aberrations in a spherical mirror [0141].
‘399 does not teach local heating or a multi-lens column.
However, ‘073 teaches local heating using a DMD to form a non-uniform profile [0040].
Additionally, ‘674 teaches a multi-lens column including the lenses and spherical mirrors (Fig. 8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of ‘399 and further include a local heating step for the purpose of controlling the shape of the film and forming a non-uniform profile. ‘073 teaches it is suitable to include a local heating step for this reason. It would have further been obvious to integrate the corrector plate into a multi-lens column because ‘674 establishes such lenses and spherical mirrors are conventional in a multi-lens column.
Claim 3:
‘073 teaches in-situ metrology used as a part of a feedback loop for forming the film [00110].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0030879 teaches in situ metrology and finish/final metrology (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights