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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/10/2026 has been entered.
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 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 requires there to be at least two spacers which are adjacent the master. However, parent claim 1 requires a spacer to surround the master and be directly adjacent it. It is unclear how the master can be directly adjacent to spacers masters when one spacer already is required to be directly adjacent it and also surround it. It appears as though Applicant should have cancelled claim 7 when claim 1 was amended.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Imai (US 2009/0273119). Regarding claim 1, Imai discloses “a system (Figures 1, 10), comprising: a master (item 3) holder (item 4), the master holder operable to retain a master on a first portion of an upper surface of the master holder (Figure 10), the master having a master optical device pattern (paragraphs 2 and 58: Examiner interprets any nanopattern to broadly be an optical device pattern) and master height from the upper surface of the master holder to an uppermost surface of the master when the master is retained (see the configuration in Figure 10); a spacer (item 12) disposed on a second portion of the upper surface of the master holder (Figure 10), the second portion surrounds the first portion such that the spacer is directly adjacent to the master when the master is retained directly on the first portion of the upper surface of the master holder and having a spacer height from the upper surface of the master holder to a top surface of the spacer, wherein the spacer height is greater than the master height when the master is retained (Figure 10); and a stamp support holder (item 2) having a vacuum region in fluid communication with a vacuum source (paragraph 53), wherein the stamp support holder retains a stamp support in contact with the spacer (paragraph 127, Figure 10).” Regarding claim 2, Imai further discloses “further comprising an actuator (item 7) coupled to the stamp support, the actuator operable to contact the stamp support with the spacer (paragraphs 65 and 127).” Regarding claim 5, no structure of the system is recited; thus, no structure is recited which defines over the modified system of Imai. Regarding claim 6, Imai further discloses “wherein the spacer surrounds the master (Figure 10).”
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.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Tan et al. (US 2019/0294040). Regarding claim 3, Imai discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, including “further comprising a controller (item 9) in communication with the master holder, the stamp support holder, and the actuator (Figure 1), the controller is operable to: instruct the actuator to move the stamp support to contact the spacer (paragraph 58).” Imai further discloses that the master holder retains the master (paragraph 69) and that “the stamp support being retained on a stamp support holder having a vacuum region, a vacuum source provides vacuum to the vacuum region in fluid communication with the vacuum source to retain the stamp support (paragraph 63).” Imai fails to disclose that the controller is operable to “instruct the master holder to retain the master” or “instruct the stamp support holder to retain the stamp support.” However, Tan et al. discloses a similar system which has a master controller which controls the entire system (paragraph 67). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to control all the components of the system of Imai with a singular controller because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose (see MPEP §2144.07), and/or in order to make the control easier and/or simpler by having all the systems control from a single interface/controller. Regarding claim 4, Imai further discloses “wherein the controller is further operable to: instruct the system to cure a stamp material into a cured stamp layer (paragraph 60: Examiner interprets the cooling of the polymer to be the curing step).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights