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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 16, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 6-7, and 33 were amended. Claims 34-35 were added. Claims 1, 3-8, 25, 27-31, and 33-35 are in the application and are pending examination. Claims 9, 11, and 14-19 have been withdrawn. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title. New Figure 12A has been added. Replacement paragraphs were added to describe Fig. 12A.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a) are withdrawn.
Amendments to the drawings should include a statement that no new matter has been added.
Specification
Amendments to the specification should include a statement that no new matter has been added.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, include : “first heating means” in claim 1, “second heating means” in claim 7, and “ heating means” in claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection to claims 23 and 26 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 based on the term “substantially polymerize” in claim 23 is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-6, 24, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) included a typographical error including the reference to Miyazaki not used in the rejection. The heading of the rejection is corrected below.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) .
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a system, comprising: heating (heat) a photocurable composition ( 53, superstrate 58) over a substrate (52) (in addition to using light);
an actinic radiation source (source in Fig. 5) configured to emit actinic radiation (55); and a controller (processor) . (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Liu teaches both actinic radiation and heat can be used to cure the formable material (53) on a superstrate. (See Liu, paragraph 62.)
Liu does not explicitly teach a system, comprising: a first heater for heating a photocurable composition over a substrate.
Struewe is directed to an exposure apparatus and method for exposing a photosensitive element.
Streuewe teaches a system, comprising: a first heating means (25, 65) for heating a photocurable composition during exposure. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 4-14, 16-24, 27-31, 33-40, 48-55, 57-68, 80-83, 112, 114, and 118 .)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to include a first heater for heating a photocurable composition over a substrate with a reasonableexpectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable form of a heater to perform the desired heat to accompany exposure. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 57, 61, 66, 68, 112, 114, 118.)
Liu does not explicitly teach a controller configured to determine a target temperature to be produced by the first heater to achieve a photocuring temperature of the photocurable composition when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation source.
Streuewe teaches a controller (56) configured to determine a targeted temperature (target temperature) to be produced by the first heating means (25, 65) to achieve a photocuring temperature (target temperature) when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 57, 61, 66, 68, 92, 112, 114, 118.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a controller configured to determine a targeted temperature to be produced by the first heating means to achieve a photocuring temperature of the photocurable composition when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper target temperature for the photocuring temperature, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the substrate at the photocuring temperature for when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source, because Streuwe teaches this allows for adjusting or optimizing the target temperature to be optimized based on the type of substrate being exposed. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 27, 57, 61, 66, 68, 112, 114, 118.)
Liu does not explicitly teach a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source (source in Fig. 5) configured to emit actinic radiation (55) at a wavelength less than 700 nm.
Struewe teaches a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source configured to emit actinic radiation at a wavelength less than 700 nm. (See Struewe, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 72-75, and 121 and Figs. 1-11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source configured to emit actinic radiation at a wavelength less than 700 nm, because Struewe teaches wavelengths less than 700 nm can be helpful for various types of exposing (imagewise, blanket exposing, and completing photopolymerization process). (See Struewe, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 72-74, 75, and 121 and Figs. 1-11.)
Liu does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is greater than 40 o C.
Ito is directed to manufacturing a film including a photocurable composition.
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 40o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature greater than 40o C, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Further regarding claim 1, Liu does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is at most 100 oC .
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 40o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature is at most 100 oC, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Further, Examiner is considering the device in Liu to be capable of operating at the claimed range.
Liu does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is achieved while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate.
Additionally regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a superstrate (58) in contact with the photocurable composition overlying the substrate (52). (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Liu does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate.
De Young is directed to a photocurable composition which is planarized with a superstrate.
De Young teaches the photocuring temperature is achieved while in contact with a superstrate (18) placed over the substrate (12) during operation (430). (See De Young, paragraph 45. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature is while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition.
De Young teaches wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Matsunaga teaches baking is a known post-exposure treatment process. (See Matsunaga, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Liu does not explicitly teach wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition.
De Young teaches wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Matsunaga teaches baking is a known post-exposure treatment process. (See Matsunaga, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Liu does not explicitly teach a cured layer is baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature.
Eriguchi is directed to manufacturing a film including a photocurable composition with excellent planarity characteristics.
Eriguchi teaches a cured layer is baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature. (See Eriguchi, Abstract, paragraphs 29-31, 65-66, 94-96.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a cured layer baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper temperatures for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal properties of the final film. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Eriguchi, Abstract, paragraphs 29-31, 65-66, 94-96.)
Regarding claim 32, Liu does not explicitly teach the controller controls the second heater such that a thickness change is: ((T2-Ti)/Ti) * 100%, where Ti is a thickness of the cured layer after being cured at the photocuring temperature,T2 is a thickness of a baked layer after being baked at the baking temperature, andthe thickness change is in a range from -2.0% to 2.0%.
Wan teaches use of multifunctional epoxides results in nearly zero shrinkage. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 24, 29, 34, 59, 64, and 92-94.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller controls the second heater such that a thickness change is: ((T2-Ti)/Ti) * 100%, where Ti is a thickness of the cured layer after being cured at the photocuring temperature,T2 is a thickness of a baked layer after being baked at the baking temperature, and the thickness change is in a range from -2.0% to 2.0%. , as way to reduce undesirable change in dimensions and replace the more complicated and expensive process of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 24, 29, 34, 59, 64, and 92-94.)
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches a first substrate chuck (54) configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation ( . (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches a dispense head (51) configured to dispense the photocurable composition over the substrate (52). (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches a superstrate (58) in contact with the photocurable composition overlying the substrate (52). (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Regarding claim 33, Liu does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is greater than 40 o C.
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 50o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature greater than 40o C, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 34, Liu teaches a superstrate (58) has a contacting surface that does not have any recessions and protrusions. (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 2-3, 22, 54, 62-63.)
Regarding claim 35, Liu does not explicitly teach the baked layer is a planarization layer. (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
De Young teaches forming a planarization layer on a substrate superstrate (18) placed over the substrate (12) during operation (430). (See De Young, paragraphs 45. )
De Young teaches the baked layer is a planarization layer (during operation 430). (See De Young, paragraphs 14, 24, 45. ) Examiner is considering a baked layer is equivalent to a cured layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baked layer is a planarization layer, because De Young teaches this structure would enable the whole wafer to be processed. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 24, 37, 40-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100118285 A1 to Hiroyuki Miyazaki (hereinafter Miyazaki).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100118285 A1 to Hiroyuki Miyazaki (hereinafter Miyazaki).
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition. Miyazaki teaches a system further comprising: a temperature sensor (5) configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 41, and 43-44.) The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a system further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition with a reasonableexpectation of success because a sensor sending a signal has known suitability for communicating information from the sensor to the controller as Miyazaki teaches temperature control unit can prevent the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered due to a delay by reducing the time until the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 18-19, 23, 27, and 39-40.) Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: wherein the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the the photocuring temperature. Miyazaki teaches the controller (17) is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source (temperature regulating unit 1 of the main temperature regulating apparatus 18 of the exposure apparatus 26) to be activated. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 41, and 43-44.) The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature with a reasonable expectation of success because a controller receiving and sending a signal has known suitability for communicating information between the controller and elements under its control as a way to provide automated control as Miyazaki teaches temperature control unit can prevent the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered due to a delay by reducing the time until the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 18-19, 23, 27, and 39-40.) The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature. Miyazaki teaches the controller (17) is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source (temperature regulating unit 1 of the main temperature regulating apparatus 18 of the exposure apparatus 26) to be activated when the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 39-41, and 43-44.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature +/- 5 °C, as a result-effective variable for the target temperature range, in order to provide the substrate at the photocuring temperature in the optimal amount of time, because Miyazaki teaches shortening the amount of time the substrate is out of the temperature range prevents the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) ( See Miyazaki, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 33, 35, 38-41 and Figs. 1-6.)
The previous rejection of claims 4, 7, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claims 1 and 3 and 1, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) is withdrawn based on the previous amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4, 7, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claims 1 and 3 and 1, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) .
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches a first substrate chuck (54) thermally coupled to the first heater (source). (See Liu, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Liu does not explicitly teach system further comprising: a second substrate chuck configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation; and a substrate transfer tool configured to transfer the substrate having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck and the second substrate chuck
Yamauchi teaches system further comprising: a second substrate chuck (stage 81) configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to a first heating means (77, 82) ; and a substrate transfer tool (74) configured to transfer the substrate (W) having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck (73 partition plate) and the second substrate chuck (stage 81). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .) Examiner is considering a stage, a partition plate to be art recognized equivalents of a substrate chuck.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise: a second substrate chuck configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the first heating means; and a substrate transfer tool configured to transfer the substrate having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck and the second substrate chuck, because Yamauchi teaches this structure would enable the substrate to be transferred and treated at the desired temperature. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
Regarding claim 7, Liu does not explicitly teach the system further comprising:
a second heater configured to bake, at a baking temperature that is higher than the photocuring temperature, a cured layer formed using the photocurable composition cured by the actinic radiation source.
Yamauchi teaches the system further comprising: a second heater (7) configured to heat a cured layer corresponding to the photocurable composition to form a baked layer, wherein the second heating means is configured to heat the substrate and the cured layer to a baking temperature (300 C in paragraph 82) higher than the photocuring temperature (250 C in paragraph 74). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second heater configured to bake, at a baking temperature that is higher than the photocuring temperature, a cured layer formed using the photocurable composition cured by the actinic radiation source, because Yamauchi teaches heating wafer with the embedded heaters (82) allows for the wafer to be more reliably treated. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
Regarding claim 25, Liu does not explicitly teach the baking temperature is in a range from 100 °C to 500 °C.
Yamauchi teaches a baking temperature (300 C in paragraph 82) higher than the photocuring temperature (250 C in paragraph 74). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the baking temperature is in a range from 100 °C to 500 °C, because Yamauchi teaches the use of the heating wafer at this temperature as a form of reliable treatment. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
The previous rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20060187438 A1 to Keiji Emoto (hereinafter Emoto) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 23.
The previous rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 26.
The previous rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) .
Regarding claim 27, Liu does not explicitly teach the photocurable composition has a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition.
Yonezawa is directed to a photocurable composition.
Yonezawa teaches the photocurable composition has a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition. (See Yonezawa, Abstract, paragraphs 47, 70, 144, 154-156, Table 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocurable composition with a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition, because Yonezawa teaches this composition would provide the desired glass transition temperature and related properties. (See Yonezawa, Abstract, paragraphs 47, 70, 144, 154-156, Table 2.)
The previous rejection of claims 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180272634 A1 to Khusnatdinov et al (hereinafter Khusnatdinov) are withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180272634 A1 to Khusnatdinov et al (hereinafter Khusnatdinov).
Regarding claim 28, Liu does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer.
Khusnatdinov teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 59, 63, 88-89, 93, 132.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 59, 63, 88-89, 93, 132.)
Regarding claim 29, Liu does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer includes two or more vinyl groups.
Khusnatdinov teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 58-59.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multifunctional monomer includes two or more vinyl groups, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 58-59.)
The previous rejection of claims 30-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 30-31.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan).
Regarding claim 30, Liu does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure.
Wan is directed to a photocurable composition.
Wan teaches the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
Regarding claim 31, Liu does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group.
Wan teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 7-10, 52-54, 56-59, 61, 64, 73-74, 78, 84, 86-87, 91, and 95.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
The previous rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 32.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 3, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source (38, source in Fig. 1) configured to emit actinic radiation (along 42 in Fig. 1); and a controller (54, processor) . (See Fletcher, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 17-18, 21, 23-24, and 50.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach a system, comprising: a first heater for heating a photocurable composition over a substrate.
Fletcher does not explicitly teach a system, comprising: a first heater for heating a photocurable composition over a substrate.
Struewe is directed to an exposure apparatus and method for exposing a photosensitive element.
Streuewe teaches a system, comprising: a first heating means (25, 65) for heating a photocurable composition during exposure. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 4-14, 16-24, 27-31, 33-40, 48-55, 57-68, 80-83, 112, 114, and 118 .)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to include a first heater for heating a photocurable composition over a substrate with a reasonableexpectation of success, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as suitable form of a heater to perform the desired heat to accompany exposure. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 57, 61, 66, 68, 112, 114, 118.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach a controller configured to determine a target temperature to be produced by the first heater to achieve a photocuring temperature of the photocurable composition when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation source.
Streuewe teaches a controller (56) configured to determine a targeted temperature (target temperature) to be produced by the first heating means (25, 65) to achieve a photocuring temperature (target temperature) when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source. (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 57, 61, 66, 68, 92, 112, 114, 118.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a controller configured to determine a targeted temperature to be produced by the first heating means to achieve a photocuring temperature of the photocurable composition when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper target temperature for the photocuring temperature, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the substrate at the photocuring temperature for when the photocurable composition is exposed by the actinic radiation source, because Streuwe teaches this allows for adjusting or optimizing the target temperature to be optimized based on the type of substrate being exposed. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Streuewe, Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and paragraphs 27, 57, 61, 66, 68, 112, 114, 118.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source configured to emit actinic radiation at a wavelength less than 700 nm.
Struewe teaches a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source configured to emit actinic radiation at a wavelength less than 700 nm. (See Struewe, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 72-75, and 121 and Figs. 1-11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a system, comprising: an actinic radiation source configured to emit actinic radiation at a wavelength less than 700 nm, because Struewe teaches wavelengths less than 700 nm can be helpful for various types of exposing (imagewise, blanket exposing, and completing photopolymerization process). (See Struewe, Abstract, paragraphs 42, 72-74, 75, and 121 and Figs. 1-11.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is greater than 40 o C.
Ito is directed to manufacturing a film including a photocurable composition.
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 40o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature greater than 40o C, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Further regarding claim 1, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is at most 100 oC .
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 40o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature is at most 100 oC, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Further, Examiner is considering the device in Fletcher to be capable of operating at the claimed range.
Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is achieved while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate.
Additionally regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches a superstrate (58) in contact with the photocurable composition overlying the substrate (52). (See Fletcher, Abstract, Fig. 5, paragraphs 22, 54, 62-63.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate.
De Young is directed to a photocurable composition which is planarized with a superstrate.
De Young teaches the photocuring temperature is achieved while in contact with a superstrate (18) placed over the substrate (12) during operation (430). (See De Young, paragraph 45. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature is while in contact with a superstrate placed over the substrate as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition.
De Young teaches wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Matsunaga teaches baking is a known post-exposure treatment process. (See Matsunaga, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition.
De Young teaches wherein baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Matsunaga teaches baking is a known post-exposure treatment process. (See Matsunaga, paragraph 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baking is performed in a state in which the superstrate is not in contact with the photocurable composition as an art recognized equivalent step of processing the substrate. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 22, 37, 45-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Fletcher does not explicitly teach a cured layer is baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature.
Eriguchi is directed to manufacturing a film including a photocurable composition with excellent planarity characteristics.
Eriguchi teaches a cured layer is baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature. (See Eriguchi, Abstract, paragraphs 29-31, 65-66, 94-96.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a cured layer baked at a baking temperature higher than the photocuring temperature, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper temperatures for the coating material, as a result-effective variable, in order to provide the optimal properties of the final film. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Eriguchi, Abstract, paragraphs 29-31, 65-66, 94-96.)
Regarding claim 32, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the controller controls the second heater such that a thickness change is: ((T2-Ti)/Ti) * 100%, where Ti is a thickness of the cured layer after being cured at the photocuring temperature,T2 is a thickness of a baked layer after being baked at the baking temperature, andthe thickness change is in a range from -2.0% to 2.0%.
Wan teaches use of multifunctional epoxides results in nearly zero shrinkage. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 24, 29, 34, 59, 64, and 92-94.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller controls the second heater such that a thickness change is: ((T2-Ti)/Ti) * 100%, where Ti is a thickness of the cured layer after being cured at the photocuring temperature,T2 is a thickness of a baked layer after being baked at the baking temperature, and the thickness change is in a range from -2.0% to 2.0%. , as way to reduce undesirable change in dimensions and replace the more complicated and expensive process of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP). (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 24, 29, 34, 59, 64, and 92-94.)
Regarding claim 3, Fletcher teaches a first substrate chuck (14) configured to hold the substrate (12) when the photocurable composition (34) is exposed to the actinic radiation. (See Fletcher, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 17-18, 21, 23-24, and 50.)
Regarding claim 33, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocuring temperature is greater than 40 o C.
Ito teaches the photocuring temperature is greater than 50o C. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocuring temperature greater than 40o C, as an art recognized equivalent form of exposing a substrate including a photocurable composition. (See Ito, Abstract, paragraphs 124-125, 129, 148, 151-152, 154-156, 162, and 165 and Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 34,Fletcher does not explicitly teach the superstrate has a contacting surface that does not have any recessions and protrusions.
De Young teaches a superstrate (18) has a contacting surface that does not have any recessions and protrusions. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 24, 37, 40-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the superstrate has a contacting surface that does not have any recessions and protrusions, because De Young teaches this structure would enable the whole wafer to be processed. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 24, 37, 40-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
Regarding claim 35, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the baked layer is a planarization layer.
De Young teaches forming a planarization layer on a substrate superstrate (18) placed over the substrate (12) during operation (430). (See De Young, paragraphs 45. )
De Young teaches the baked layer is a planarization layer (during operation 430). (See De Young, paragraphs 14, 24, 45. ) Examiner is considering a baked layer is equivalent to a cured layer.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the baked layer is a planarization layer, because De Young teaches this structure would enable the whole wafer to be processed. (See De Young, Abstract, paragraphs 3, 14, 22, 24, 37, 40-46 and Figs. 1-5.)
The previous rejection of claims 2, 4, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claim 1, respectively, and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) .
Regarding claim 4, Fletcher does not explicitly teach system further comprising: a second substrate chuck configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation; and a substrate transfer tool configured to transfer the substrate having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck and the second substrate chuck
Yamauchi teaches system further comprising: a second substrate chuck (stage 81) configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the first heating means (82); and a substrate transfer tool (74) configured to transfer the substrate (W) having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck (73 partition plate) and the second substrate chuck (stage 81). (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88.) Examiner is considering a stage, a partition plate to be art recognized equivalents of a substrate chuck.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise: a second substrate chuck configured to hold the substrate when the photocurable composition is exposed to the first heating means; and a substrate transfer tool configured to transfer the substrate having the photocurable composition between the first substrate chuck and the second substrate chuck, because Yamauchi teaches this structure would enable the substrate to be transferred and treated at the desired temperature. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
Regarding claim 7, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the system further comprising: a second heater configured to bake, at a baking temperature that is higher than the photocuring temperature, a cured layer formed using the photocurable composition cured by the actinic radiation source.
Yamauchi teaches the system further comprising: a second heating means (78) configured to heat a cured layer corresponding to the photocurable composition to form a baked layer, wherein the second heating means is configured to heat the substrate and the cured layer to a baking temperature (300 C in paragraph 82) higher than the photocuring temperature (250 C in paragraph 74) . (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the system further comprising: a second heater configured to bake, at a baking temperature that is higher than the photocuring temperature, a cured layer formed using the photocurable composition cured by the actinic radiation source, because Yamauchi teaches the use of the heating wafer with the embedded heaters (82) allows for the wafer to be more reliably treated. (See Yamauchi, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 63, 67, 69, 74, 78-79, 82-83, 86-88 .)
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100118285 A1 to Hiroyuki Miyazaki (hereinafter Miyazaki) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20100118285 A1 to Hiroyuki Miyazaki (hereinafter Miyazaki).
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition. Miyazaki teaches a system further comprising: a temperature sensor (5) configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 41, and 43-44.) The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have a system further comprising: a temperature sensor configured to generate a first signal corresponding to a temperature of the photocurable composition with a reasonableexpectation of success because a sensor sending a signal has known suitability for communicating information from the sensor to the controller as Miyazaki teaches temperature control unit can prevent the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered due to a delay by reducing the time until the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 18-19, 23, 27, and 39-40.) Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: wherein the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the the photocuring temperature. Miyazaki teaches the controller (17) is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source (temperature regulating unit 1 of the main temperature regulating apparatus 18 of the exposure apparatus 26) to be activated. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 41, and 43-44.) The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature with a reasonable expectation of success because a controller receiving and sending a signal has known suitability for communicating information between the controller and elements under its control as a way to provide automated control as Miyazaki teaches temperature control unit can prevent the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered due to a delay by reducing the time until the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 18-19, 23, 27, and 39-40.) The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach a system further comprising: wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature. Miyazaki teaches the controller (17) is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source (temperature regulating unit 1 of the main temperature regulating apparatus 18 of the exposure apparatus 26) to be activated when the temperature falls within the target temperature range. (See Miyazaki, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 6, 9, 18-19, 23, 25, 27-28, 32-33, 35, 38, 39-41, and 43-44.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the controller is further configured to receive the first signal and to transmit a second signal for the actinic radiation source to be activated when the temperature is at +/- 5 °C of the photocuring temperature +/- 5 °C, as a result-effective variable for the target temperature range, in order to provide the substrate at the photocuring temperature in the optimal amount of time, because Miyazaki teaches shortening the amount of time the substrate is out of the temperature range prevents the productivity of the exposure apparatus from being lowered. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) ( See Miyazaki, Abstract, paragraphs 9, 33, 35, 38-41 and Figs. 1-6.)
The previous rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20060187438 A1 to Keiji Emoto (hereinafter Emoto) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 23.
The previous rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 26.
The previous rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa).
Regarding claim 27, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the photocurable composition has a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition.
Yonezawa teaches the photocurable composition has a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition. (See Yonezawa, Abstract, paragraphs 47, 70, 144, 154-156, Table 2.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the photocurable composition with a multifunctional monomer content of at least 90% by weight of the photocurable composition, because Yonezawa teaches this composition would provide the desired glass transition temperature and related properties. (See Yonezawa, Abstract, paragraphs 47, 70, 144, 154-156, Table 2.)
The previous rejection of claims 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180272634 A1 to Khusnatdinov et al (hereinafter Khusnatdinov) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180272634 A1 to Khusnatdinov et al (hereinafter Khusnatdinov).
Regarding claim 28, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer.
Khusnatdinov teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 59, 63, 88-89, 93, 132.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 59, 63, 88-89, 93, 132.)
Regarding claim 29, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer includes two or more vinyl groups.
Khusnatdinov teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises a difunctional monomer, a trifunctional monomer, or a tetrafunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 58-59.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have multifunctional monomer includes two or more vinyl groups, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Khusnatdinov, Abstract, paragraphs 58-59.)
The previous rejection of claims 30-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210223690 A1 to Yonezawa et al (hereinafter Yonezawa) as applied to claim 27 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan).
Regarding claim 30, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure.
Wan teaches the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer includes at least one aromatic ring structure, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
Regarding claim 31, Fletcher does not explicitly teach the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group.
Wan teaches the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 7-10, 52-54, 56-59, 61, 64, 73-74, 78, 84, 86-87, 91, and 95.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the multifunctional monomer comprises an acrylate group, as an art recognized equivalent form of a multifunctional monomer. (See Wan, Abstract, paragraphs 63-64, 69, 74, 84, and 91.)
The previous rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20150017329 A1 to Fletcher et al (hereinafter Fletcher) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210305082 to Wan and Liu et al (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20160041468 A1 to Struewe et al (hereinafter Struewe) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150210790 A1 to Ito (hereinafter Ito) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20230042982 A1 to Yamauchi et al (hereinafter Yamauchi) as applied to claim 7 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) is withdrawn based on the cancellation of claim 32.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 25, 27-31, and 33-35 ( previously 1, 2-8, and 23-33) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US Pat. Pub. No. 20200286740 A1 to De Young et al (hereinafter De Young) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20090115978 A1 to Matsunaga et al (hereinafter Matsunaga) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110086939 A1 to Ito and Eriguchi et al (hereinafter Eriguchi) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) are being used to address the limitations added to claim 1.
Applicant argues on page 11, third paragraph of the Remarks Section that:
“ The Office Action does not address Miyazaki… “
The inclusion of Miyazaki is a typographical error and has been removed from the rejection.
Applicant argues in the last paragraph, on page 11, of the Remarks Section that:
“ The references individually or in combination do not teach or suggest the photocurable composition is heated and photocured while in contact with a superstrate, … such that a thickness change after the baking is in a range from -2.0% to + 2.0%.“
This limitation is being address by US Pat. Pub. No. 20210087407 A1 to Wan et al (hereinafter Wan) which was previously used to address this limitation in claim 32.
Applicant argues on page 12, first paragraph of the Remarks Section that:
“ The Office Action relies on Ito regarding the temperature for heating and asserts that Ito disclosed a photocuring temperature greater than 40 C… Ito does not teach or suggest a photocuring temperature of at least 50 C (as recited on page 15 of the Final Office Action). “
Examiner disagrees. Ito specifically teaches heat curing can take place in the range of temperatures 40-200 C. (See Ito, paragraph 65.)
Applicant argues on page 12, first paragraph of the Remarks Section that:
“ Struewe discloses a temperature of a precursor during exposure is maintained at a target temperature less than about 35 C. Struewe at paragraph [0060]. “
Struewe is not being relied on to teach the temperature of the curing.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Struewe is being relied on to teach a controller configured to determine a target temperature to be produced by the first heater to achieve a photocuring temperature of the photocurable composition when the photocurable composition is exposed to the actinic radiation source.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717