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 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan et al. (US 2019/0294040) in view of Veldhuizen et al. (WO 2022/022937). For simplicity, citations will be made to the US equivalent of Veldhuizen et al. (US 2023/0294442). Regarding claim 1, Tan et al. disclose “a system (Figures 4A-4D), comprising: a master (item 300) holder (item 200), the master holder operable to retain a master on a first portion of an upper surface of the master holder (Figure 4A), the master having a master optical device pattern (paragraph 2: 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 Figures 4A-4D); and a stamp support holder (item 230) having a vacuum region in fluid communication with a vacuum source (paragraph 68, Figure 5).” Tan et al. fail to disclose “a spacer disposed on a second portion of the upper surface of the master holder, the second portion adjacent to the first portion 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,” or “wherein the stamp support holder retains a stamp support in contact with the spacer.” However, Veldhuizen et al. teach adding spacers in order to provide thickness control of the final imprint product in a process for replicating a final imprint product (paragraph 26, Figure 6, items 119’’ and 117’’). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add vertical spacers to the system of Tan et al. in order to provide thickness control of the final replicated stamp. Upon modification, at least when the master is brought into contact with the stamping material in order to replicate the structure, the stamp support holder will be retaining the stamp support in contact with the spacer. Regarding claim 2, Tan et al. further disclose “further comprising an actuator coupled to the stamp support, the actuator operable to contact the stamp support with the spacer (paragraph 67).” Regarding claim 3, Tan et al. further disclose “further comprising a controller in communication with the master holder, the stamp support holder, and the actuator (paragraph 67), the controller is operable to: instruct the master holder to retain the master (paragraph 67); instruct the stamp support holder to retain the stamp support, 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 67, 68); and instruct the actuator to move the stamp support to contact the spacer (paragraphs 67, 68).” Regarding claim 4, Tan et al. further disclose “wherein the controller is further operable to: instruct the system to cure a stamp material into a cured stamp layer (paragraph 65).” Regarding claim 5, no structure of the system is recited; thus, no structure is recited which defines over the modified system of Tan et al. Regarding claim 6, Veldhuizen et al. further disclose “wherein the spacer surrounds the master (Figures 4 and 5).” Regarding claim 7, Veldhuizen et al. further disclose “wherein the master is adjacent to a first spacer and a second spacer (see the different spacers 116, 117, 118, and 119 surrounding the masters).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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