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 Arguments
In response to the amendments filed 3/17/2026, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach all of the limitations of claim 1 including curing the resin when the photosensitive resin comes into contact with the waveguide system. Examiner disagrees. With respect to claim 1, there is no structure of the waveguide system claimed other than “light of a light source within a waveguiding system.” By this limitation, it can be interpreted that the waveguide system structure includes a light source and light. When the light described in Chung cures the resin, the light is necessarily contacting the resin. Since the light is claimed as being part of the waveguide system, the waveguide system is also touching the resin. Chung does not explicitly teach a waveguide system and Kim is cited for teaching the waveguide system, however, adding the waveguide structure of Kim to the light system in Chung still would meet the claim because light from the system is still contacting the resin. If there is a specific component or structure of the waveguide system that makes contact with the resin, that should be further specified in the claims. The dependent claims also remain rejected.
Applicant argues with respect to claim 4 that the force of moving the pattern units towards one another is parallel to the textured areas, not perpendicular. Applicant’s remarks suggest the force should be applied to the surface of the textured area. Examiner disagrees. As per [0017] of the specification as published, “In one embodiment a force is applied on the at least two masters perpendicular to at least one of the textured areas. For example, this can be a gravitational force brought about by a weight or an air pressure-controlled force that is applied on the outer sides.” The specification seems to imply the perpendicular force can be applied to the sides of the master, not only the surface of the textured area. Regardless of which direction is perpendicular, Chung describes both a vertical movement (placing the structure units on a flat surface) and a horizontal movement (moving the units towards one another) which meets either interpretation of the claim.
Applicant argues regarding claim 9 that Guo does not disclose a master or waveguide system, does not specify the surface energy is less than 15 mN/m, and does not describe a process for achieving the lower surface energy. This is not found to be persuasive. First, non-obviousness cannot be shown by attacking the references individually. Guo does not need to teach all of a waveguide system or multiple masters when these limitations are previously taught by other references. Next, the rejection does not suggest that Guo exactly describes a surface energy of 15 mN/n or less but rather states that the surface energy of a master template is a result-effective variable affecting adhesion during replication and that a person of skill in the art would recognize that the surface energy could be optimized in order to optimize the adhesion and release during replication. With respect to Guo not suggesting a process for achieving the lower surface energy, this is not what is claimed. Guo suggests that the master should have lower surface energy, which is what is claimed. Examiner also notes that a master having a release layer with a low energy is a master having a surface with low surface energy because the release layer is the surface of the master.
Applicant requests a rejoinder for withdrawn claims 13-17 but the claims are not allowed and a rejoinder is not yet proper.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 2016/0054498) modified by Kim (KR20100117281A, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Chung meets the claimed, A welding method for creating an upscaled master for an imprinting process, (Chung [0063] and [0080] describe joining multiple pattern structure units to form a master) comprising: welding at least two masters together, (Chung [0080] describes applying UV light to cure a resin 320’ inserted between two pattern structure units 310 to join them together) wherein at least one master comprises at least partially at least one textured area, (Chung [0080] describes the patterns on the pattern structure units 310, see also Figures 9-12) applying a photosensitive resin is at least between the at least two masters, guiding light of a light source and curing the photosensitive resin at least between the at least two masters when the photosensitive resin comes into contact (Chung [0078]-[0080] describe applying a photocurable resin 320’ to the empty space 315 between the pattern structure units 310 and curing with a UV light, the UV light being in contact with the resin.)
Chung describes a UV light to expose the resin but does not specify that a waveguide system is used. Kim also describes an exposure system and meets the claimed, a waveguiding system, with the waveguiding system (Kim pages 7-8 describe an exposure apparatus which includes optical fibers (waveguide systems) 10 and 40.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the UV light disclosed in Chung for the UV waveguide systems and optical fibers as disclosed in Chung in order to deliver light with a maximum intensity to the exposure apparatus, see Kim end of page 7- page 8.
Regarding claim 2, Chung meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim 1, wherein the at least two masters are positioned such that the at least one textured area of the at least two masters is oriented towards the waveguiding systems and/or at least one of the masters is at least partially in contact with the light guiding system (Chung Figure 12 shows the pattern faces towards the UV source.)
Regarding claim 3, Chung does not meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the light source is a mercury- vapor lamp or a strip of UV-LEDs and/or the light of the light source is coupled into the waveguiding system via a coupler.
Kim meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the light source is a mercury- vapor lamp or a strip of UV-LEDs and/or the light of the light source is coupled into the waveguiding system via a coupler (Kim page 5 discloses a mercury lamp and Kim beginning at page 4 describes coupling devices such as a light splitting lenses and optical splitters.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the UV light source of Chung with the waveguide system of Kim having the light splitting lens in order to control the light intensity, see Kim page 6 fifth full paragraph.
Regarding claim 4, Chung meets the claimed, The welding method according to, wherein a force is applied on the at least two masters perpendicularly to at least one of the textured areas (Chung Figures 9-10 and [0076] describe the pattern structure units 310 are placed on a flat surface and then moved towards one another, the movement is a force applied in a direction perpendicular to the texture area, see Figure 9.)
Regarding claim 5, Chung meets the claimed, The welding method according to the at least two masters are positioned side by side in a lateral distance between 0 and 500 µm (Chung [0082] describes the layer between the two pattern structure units 310 is less than 10 µm.)
Regarding claim 7, Chung meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim 1, wherein the photosensitive resin is added via laminating and/or dispensing and/or printing and/or capillary force (Chung [0078] describes capillary phenomena to apply the resin 320’ in the empty space 315.)
Regarding claim 10, Chung does not describe the waveguide structure and does not meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the waveguiding system (5) comprises at least partially a relief structure and/or an optical structure and/or a doping.
Kim meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the waveguiding system (5) comprises at least partially a relief structure and/or an optical structure and/or a doping (Kim pages 7-8 describe an exposure apparatus which includes optical fibers (waveguide systems) 10 and 40 and Kim beginning at page 4 describes a number of optical devices including light splitting lenses and optical splitters.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the UV light source of Chung with the waveguide system including the optical structures as disclosed in Kim in order to control the light intensity, see Kim page 6 fifth full paragraph.
Regarding claim 11, Chung does not describe the waveguide system. Kim meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim 1, wherein the waveguiding system has a sheet form and/or is at least partially made of glass, fused silica, quartz, polymer or mixtures thereof (Kim pages 7-8 describe an exposure apparatus which includes optical fibers (waveguide systems) 10 and 40, optical fibers are made from either glass or polymers.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the UV light disclosed in Chung for the optical fibers as disclosed in Chung in order to deliver light with a maximum intensity to the exposure apparatus, see Kim end of page 7- page 8.
Regarding claim 12, Chung does not describe a waveguiding system. Kim further meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the waveguiding system comprises at least one sensor device (Kim page 6 describes a power probe.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the UV light source of Chung with the waveguide system having a power probe as described in Kim in order to control the intensity of light and fine tune the light splitting units, see Kim page 6, fifth full paragraph.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung modified by Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 2013/0056903.)
Regarding claim 6, Chung does not disclose a controlling device and does not meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim 1, wherein a position of the at least two masters and/or a lateral distance between the at least two masters and/or a vertical distance between the at least two masters and the waveguiding system and/or an amount of photosensitive resin is detected and/or regulated by at least one controlling device.
Analogous in the field of ultra-violet curing and imprinting, Hayashi meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim 1, wherein a position of the at least two masters and/or a lateral distance between the at least two masters and/or a vertical distance between the at least two masters and the waveguiding system and/or an amount of photosensitive resin is detected and/or regulated by at least one controlling device (Hayashi [0028] describes a resin supply unit which dispenses a UV curable resin and controls the amount supplied.)
The courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of Chung with the dispensing apparatus controlling the amount of resin dispensed as described in Hayashi in order to dispense resin at the target locations, see Hayashi [0029] and because it is a known method of dispensing resin.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung modified by Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer Timmerman Thijssen, hereinafter “Thijssen” (US 2020/0142120.)
Regarding claim 8, Chung does not describe the master itself acting as a waveguiding system and does not meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein at least one master comprises a material that is transparent to the light from the light source and acts as a further waveguiding system.
Analogous in the field of master template manufacturing, Thijssen meets the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein at least one master comprises a material that is transparent to the light from the light source and acts as a further waveguiding system (Thijssen [0019] describe manufacturing a master for nano-imprint lithography which also is a waveguide structure.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the master manufacturing method of Chung with the master itself being a waveguide structure as disclosed in Thijssen in order to reproduce waveguide grating structures during imprint lithography, see Thijssen [0019]-[0020].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as modified by Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo (US 2008/0145525.)
Regarding claim 9, Chung does not describe the surface energy of the master and Kim does not describe the surface energy of the waveguide system and neither meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the at least two masters and/or the waveguiding system have a surface free energy of less than 15 mN/m measured according to contact angle measurement according to ISO 19403- 2:2017.
Analogous in the field of master templates, Guo does not explicitly meet the claimed, The welding method according to claim1, wherein the at least two masters and/or the waveguiding system have a surface free energy of less than 15 mN/m measured according to contact angle measurement according to ISO 19403- 2:2017, however, Guo [0012]-[0013] and [0009] describes that a release layer can be added to a master template which lowers the surface energy. Guo further describes that lower surface energy results in lower adhesion with the resist material during imprinting. Since Guo discloses that the surface energy is a result effective variable affecting the adhesion of the resist to the master during use, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to optimize the surface energy through routine optimization in order to prevent adhesion, see Guo [0009].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights