DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 06/01/2026, claims 1-2, 5-16, and 18-22 are pending. Claims 1=2, 5-6, 8-9, 13-16, and 20-22 are currently amended. Claims 3-4, 17 are canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 20-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 5-16, and 19 would be considered in this Office 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “with the mold placed over the curable composition on the substrate” (lines 5-6).
Claim 8 should be corrected to “a mixing unit configured to mix [[a]]the second gas
Claim 9 should be corrected to “the control unit controls a mixing ratio of the first gas and [[a]]the second gas .
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, and 19: “a/the planarized film forming operation unit”
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 12, and 19: “a/the exposure unit”
Claim 1: “a/the moving unit”
Claims 1, 5, and 15-16: “a/the second gas supply unit” and “a/the supply unit of the second gas”
Claims 6, 7, and 15-16: “a/the first gas supply unit” and “a/the supply unit of the first gas”
Claim 8: “a mixing unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a/the planarized film forming operation unit” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0035-0038] and figs. 1, 4, 7) and equivalents thereof.
“a/the exposure unit” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0040, 0054-0056] and figs. 1, 4, 7) and equivalents thereof.
“a/the moving unit” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0053] and figs. 1, 4, 7) and equivalents thereof.
“a/the second gas supply unit” and “a/the supply unit of the second gas” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0044-0045, 0072-0074, 0091-0094, 0095, 0102-0103] and figs. 2, 5, 8, 9) and equivalents thereof.
“a/the first gas supply unit” and “a/the supply unit of the first gas” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0044-0045, 0072-0074, 0091-0094, 0095, 0102-0103] and figs. 2, 5, 8, 9) and equivalents thereof.
“a mixing unit” would be interpreted as the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification ([0102] and figs. 8, 9) and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 1-19 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasumi (US 20100031833 A1) in view of Murasato (US 20190263031 A1) and Norikane (US 20200142299 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kasumi teaches a [planarization] apparatus (fig. 1 and claim 1) comprising:
a [planarized] film forming operation unit configured to bring a mold into contact with a curable composition supplied to a substrate [to form a planarized film] (figs. 1, 3, 5-6; [0041]: the loading station 110 and the conveyance robot 160; [0042-0044]: the press station 120 is a part of the imprint apparatus in which a press unit configured to apply a pressure between the substrate W and the mold M and the resin P fills in the patterned shape of the mold M);
an exposure unit configured to expose the curable composition (figs. 1, 7A-7B and [0053-0054]: the cure unit 140 cures the resin P by irradiating UV onto the whole surface through the mold M);
a moving unit configured to move the substrate, with the mold placed on the substrate via the curable composition, from the [planarized] film forming operation unit to the exposure unit (figs. 1, 3, 5-6, 7A-B and [0032-0035, 0039, 0041]: the movement table 170 (a to c) is mounted with a substrate chuck 171 which holds a substrate W with the mold M over UV curing resin and sequentially moves among the respective stations);
[a second gas supply unit configured to supply, before the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition, a second gas that does not inhibit curing of the curable composition to a region around the curable composition]; and
a control unit, including at least one processor or circuit ([0045, 0049]: controller 138 with a processor 137), [configured to reduce or stop supply of the second gas in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit, so that a concentration of a first gas that inhibits curing of the curable composition becomes higher in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit after the substrate is moved by the moving unit than in a state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the planarized film forming operation unit].
Kasumi does not specifically teach the bracketed limitations as presented above, but Murasato and Norikane teaches the limitation as follows:
Murasato teaches an imprint apparatus (fig. 1, abstract). The imprint apparatus comprises a second gas supply unit (first gas supply unit 9) configured to supply, before the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition, a second gas that does not inhibit curing of the curable composition to a region around the curable composition (figs. 1, 3-7; [0044-0045]: a first supply unit 9 supplying a first gas to a gap between the substrate 1 and the mold 4, the first gas such as helium or PFP; [0064]: steps S602-S604 – first gas is ejected from the first gas supply unit 9); and
a control unit, including at least one processor or circuit (fig. 1 and [0044]: control unit 23 that controls the supply of the first/second gas from the first/second gas supply unit 9, 10), configured to reduce or stop supply of the second gas (first gas such as He or PFP) in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit (fig. 6; [0065]: in step S605, the control unit 23 typically terminates the ejection of the first gas from the first nozzle 93 before start of ejection of the second gas from the second nozzle 103), so that a concentration of a first gas that inhibits curing of the curable composition (second gas such as oxygen) becomes higher in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit than in a state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the film forming operation unit (figs. 1, 6; [0067]: in step S607 of curing, the presence of the second gas around the pattern region 43 (i.e., in a region where curing should be avoided) inhibits the curing of the imprint material IM around the pattern region 43; of note, here, it is implied that the concentration of the curing-inhibiting gas is higher in a curing state (S607) than in a state in which the mold is brough into contact with the curable composition (S603-S604) as the first gas supply is terminated and the second gas supply is initiated in S605).
Both Kasumi and Murasato teach an imprint apparatus (Kasumi: fig. 1 and abstract; Murasato: fig. 1 and abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the imprint apparatus of Kasumi to further comprise the first and the second gas supply units supplying for first gas (such as helium/PFP) and second gas (such as oxygen), respectively, and the controller as taught by Murasato in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of accelerating filling of an imprint material in contact with a mold by supplying the first gas and inhibiting curing of the imprint material in outside of a shot region by supplying the second gas after the mold being contacted with the curing resin and until curing, so as to imprint a patterned article with improved precision and control (Murasato: derived from [0003-0005, 0045-0047]).
Upon the modification, modified Kasumi teaches that the controller (Murasato: fig. 1 and [0044]: control unit 23) is configure to reduce or stop supply of the second gas in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit so that a concentration of a first gas (Murasato: second gas such as oxygen) that inhibits curing of the curable composition becomes higher in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit (Kasumi: figs. 1, 7A-7B and [0053-0054]: the cure unit 140) after the substrate, with the mold placed on the substrate via the curable composition, is moved by the moving unit (Kasumi: figs. 1, [0031]: from the loading station 110 to the cure unit 140) than in a state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the film forming operation unit (Kasumi: figs. 1, 3, 5-6; [0041]: the loading station 110; [0042-0044]: the press station 120) (Murasato: figs. 1, 6 and [0065, 0067]).
Upon the modification, modified Kasumi is still silent that the apparatus is planarization apparatus forming a planarized film using a planarized film forming operation unit.
Norikane teaches a planarized layer forming apparatus operable to use a pressing member to form a planarized layer of a curable composition on a substrate (abstract, fig. 1). The apparatus comprises a planar template 11 as a mold, and the planar template 11 comes in contact with a planarizing material on substrate ([0025]).
In the same field of endeavor of imprinting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the mold of modified Kasumi with another known pattern of mold having a flat pattern as taught by Norikane in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a planarized film using an imprinting technique/apparatus (Norikane: derived from [0010]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to perform control such that a concentration of the second gas in the region around the curable composition becomes lower in the state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit than in the state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the planarized film forming operation unit (Kasumi: figs. 1, 3, 5-6; [0041]: the loading station 110; [0042-0044]: the press station 120 in which a press unit configured to apply a pressure between the substrate W and the mold M; Murasato: figs. 1, 6; [0044]: control unit 23 that controls the supply of the first/second gas from the first/second gas supply unit 9, 10; [0064]: the control unit 23 controls the first controller 92 of the first supply unit 9 such that the first gas is ejected from the first nozzle 93 selected in step S601 until S605; [0065]: in step S605, the control unit 23 typically terminates the ejection of the first gas from the first nozzle 93 before start of ejection of the second gas from the second nozzle 103; [0067]: in step S607 of curing, the presence of the second gas around the pattern region 43 (i.e., in a region where curing should be avoided) inhibits the curing of the imprint material IM around the pattern region 43; of note, here, it is implied that the concentration of the non-curing-inhibiting gas is lower in a curing state (S607) than in a state in which the mold is brough into contact with the curable composition (S603-S604) as the first gas supply is terminated and the second gas supply is initiated in S605).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second gas supply unit (Murasato: first supply unit 9) stops the supply of the second gas to the curable composition in the state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit (Murasato: fig. 6; [0065]: in step S605, the control unit 23 typically terminates the ejection of the first gas from the first nozzle 93 before start of ejection of the second gas from the second nozzle 103; [0067]: in step S607 of curing, the presence of the second gas around the pattern region 43 (i.e., in a region where curing should be avoided) inhibits the curing of the imprint material IM around the pattern region 43; also, of note, the imprint apparatus having the control unit 23 and the first/second supply units 9, 10 is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a first gas supply unit (Murasato: second supply unit 10) configured to supply the first gas to the region around the curable composition before the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit (Murasato: figs. 1, 6; [0065]: the second supply unit 10 start to supply the second gas, with the mold 4 in contact with the imprint material IM, before curing in S607; also, of note, the imprint apparatus having the control unit 23 and the first/second supply units 9, 10 is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the first gas supply unit (Murasato: second supply unit 10) starts supplying the first gas to the curable composition after the operation of bringing the mold into contact with the curable composition by the planarized film forming operation unit is completed (Murasato: figs. 1, 6; [0065]: the second supply unit 10 start to supply the second gas, with the mold 4 in contact with the imprint material IM, before curing in S607; [0046-0047, 0054]: second supply unit 10 that supplies a second gas such as oxygen after the mold 4 is brought into contact with the imprint material IM and before the imprint material IM is irradiated with the light 8a; also, of note, the imprint apparatus having the control unit 23 and the first/second supply units 9, 10 is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second gas is a gas for promoting filling or diffusion of the curable composition (Murasato: [0003, 0045]: the first gas may contain, e.g., at least one of helium and PFP). Of note, the property of the second gas does not affect the structure of the planarization apparatus, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first gas contains at least oxygen (Murasato: fig. 1 and [0046-0047, 0054]: second supply unit 10 that supplies a second gas such as oxygen). Of note, the property/type of the first gas does not affect the structure of the planarization apparatus, see MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the planarized film forming operation unit has a mold holding unit for holding the mold, and the exposure unit is disposed at a position where exposure light is not blocked by the mold holding unit (Kasumi: fig. 1, 3, 5, 7A, 7B and, as a mold holding unit, [0041]: conveyance robot 160 at the loading station 110; [0043]: press plate 122 with a pad 121 and bellows 123 at the press station 120). Of note, here, the loading station 110 and the press station 120 are separated from the cure unit 140.
Claims 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasumi (US 20100031833 A1), Murasato (US 20190263031 A1), and Norikane (US 20200142299 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Takamura (JP 2016111201 A).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the apparatus further comprises a mixing unit configured to mix a second gas that does not inhibit curing of the curable composition and the first gas, and supply the mixed gas to the region around the curable composition (claim 8), and the control unit controls a mixing ratio of the first gas and a second gas that does not inhibit curing of the curable composition (claim 9)
Takamura teaches an imprint apparatus ([0001]). The apparatus comprises respective gas supply units for two or more gases, a mixing unit configured to mix the gases, and the control unit that controls a mixing ratio of the respective gases in the mixing unit (figs. 1, 3; [0029-0032]: the control unit 8 supplies a control signal 8a to each valve controller 16c; gas supply unit 16 comprises the valve controllers 16c such as an electromagnetic valve, solenoid valve, and mass flow controller for each of the two different gas lines 16a1 and 16a2 and has a shared outlet pipe 16b; a mixer 16d mixes two or more types of gases output from the mass flow controller 16c at a target ratio). Of note, the property of the second gas does not affect the structure of the planarization apparatus, see MPEP 2115.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing invention to modify the respective supply units of the first gas and the second gas of modified Kasumi to have a controller, mass valve controllers, a mixing unit, and a shared outlet as taught by Takamura in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of facilitating blending process allowing for precise control over the composition of the respective gases and building a gas supply unit with potentially low cost compared to separate supply units. Here, the imprint apparatus of modified Kasumi is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control unit causes the mixing ratio to be different between the state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit and the state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the planarized film forming operation unit (Murasato: fig. 1 and [0045, 0048]: first supply unit 9 supplies first gas such as helium or PFP between substrate 1 and the mold 4 while the substrate 1 and the mold 4 are moving relative to each other, with the imprint material IM not in contact with the pattern region 43 of the mold 4; fig. 1 and [0046-0047, 0054]: second supply unit 10 that supplies a second gas such as oxygen after the mold 4 is brought into contact with the imprint material IM and before the imprint material IM is irradiated with the light 8a; Takamura: fig. 3 and [0029-0032]). Here, the imprint apparatus of modified Kasumi is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the control unit changes the mixing ratio according to an illuminance or an exposure amount in the exposure unit (Takamura: fig. 3 and [0023-0028]: imprinting process and gas control at each step; [0029-0032]). Here, although modified Kasumi does not explicitly disclose the recited function, the imprint apparatus of modified Kasumi is capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasumi (US 20100031833 A1), Murasato (US 20190263031 A1), Norikane (US 20200142299 A1), and Takamura (JP 2016111201 A) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Ikeda (JP 2007094066 A).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 9, but does not specifically teach that the planarization apparatus further comprising an oxygen concentration meter, wherein the control unit controls the mixing ratio based on an oxygen concentration measured by the oxygen concentration meter.
Ikeda teaches an exposure apparatus for manufacturing an article ([0001]). The exposure apparatus comprises an oxygen concentration meter, wherein the control unit controls the mixing ratio based on an oxygen concentration measured by the oxygen concentration meter (fig. 1 and [0020]: exposure apparatus comprising oxygen concentration meter 2, oxygen concentration feedback system 3, an oxygen gas supply system 4, and nitrogen gas supply system5; the amount of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas supplied is determined by commands from the feedback system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the planarization apparatus comprising respective supply units for the first gas and the second gas of modified Kasumi to further have an oxygen concentration meter which feedbacks to control the amount of respective gases as taught by Ikeda in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of improving precise control of the oxygen concentration which impacts on a level of curing of a curing resin so as to improve an imprinting quality of manufactured articles (Ikeda: derived from [0008]). Here, the imprint apparatus of modified Kasumi is also capable of performing the recited function as is, see MPEP 2114.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasumi (US 20100031833 A1), Murasato (US 20190263031 A1), and Norikane (US 20200142299 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yoshida (JP 2012099789 A).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 6, comprising the first gas supply unit configured to supply the first gas and the second gas supply unit are provided (Murasato: [0045-0046]: first/second supply units 9, 10), but does not specifically teach that the supply units are provided in a substrate holding unit for holding the substrate.
Yoshida teaches an imprint apparatus ([0001]). Yoshida teaches that the imprint apparatus concludes gas supply devices 35a to 35c connected to gas supply ports 28a to 28c, respectively, around the mold 3 and chuck 5 (i.e., a substrate holding unit) (fig. 1, [0020, 0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the first/second gas supply units of modified Kasumi to be placed in the substrate holding unit as another known position for supplying first/second gases as taught by Yoshida in order to obtain know results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of supplying first/second gases to an imprint material disposed between a substrate and a mold, so as to so as to imprint a patterned article with improved precision and control (Yoshida: derived from [0003, 0023]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 6, but does not specifically teach that the first gas supply unit configured to supply the first gas and the second gas supply unit are provided on the opposite sides to each other.
Similar to as applied to claim 14, modified Kasumi further in view of Yoshida teaches that the first/second gas supply units are provided in a substrate holding unit for holding the substrate (see above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 14).
Furthermore, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the first/second gas supply units in the substrate holding unit of modified Kasumi to be provided on the opposite sides to each other, similar to the arrangement of the first/second supply units around a mold as taught by Murasato (figs. 3A, 3B; [0050]; of note, here, for example, the gas supply unit 10 (at left top corner) is provided on a opposite side of the gas supply unit 9 (at the bottom or at the right)) in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of supplying respective gases effectively to its desired positions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasumi (US 20100031833 A1), Murasato (US 20190263031 A1), Norikane (US 20200142299 A1), and Yoshida (JP 2012099789 A) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Takamura (JP 2016111201 A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kasumi teaches the planarization apparatus according to claim 14, but does not specifically teach that the first gas supply unit and the second gas supply unit are shared.
Takamura teaches an imprint apparatus ([0001]). The apparatus comprises two respective gas supply units, and both supply lines are shared (figs. 1, 3; [0029-0032]: gas supply unit 16 comprising a controller 16c such as an electromagnetic valve, solenoid valve, and mass flow controller for each of the two different gas lines 16a1, 16a2 has a shared outlet pipe 16b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing invention to modify the respective supply units of the first gas and the second gas of modified Kasumi to have a shared outlet as taught by Takamura in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of facilitating blending process allowing for precise control over the composition of the respective gases and building a gas supply unit with potentially low cost compared to separate supply units.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that the applicants have modified the claims with the latest amendment dated 06/01/2025, wherein the arguments are based upon these changes.
The Applicant argues (see pages 8-12 of Remarks) that modified Kasumi (Kasumi in view of Murasato and Norikane) does not teach or suggest “a specific sequence and control arrangement in which: 1. before contact between the mold and the curable composition, a second gas that does not inhibit curing is supplied to a region around the curable composition; 2. after the planarization film forming operation, the substrate is moved to the exposure unit while the mold is placed on the substrate via the curable composition; and 3. during exposure after such movement, the supply of the second gas is reduced or stopped so that the concentration of the first gas that inhibits curing becomes higher than that in the mold-contact state” according to the latest amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument (for details, see above, the 103 rejection of claim 1). Kasumi teaches an imprint apparatus comprising a moving unit configured to move a substrate, with the mold placed over the curable composition on the substrate, from a planarized film forming operation unit to an exposure unit (Kasumi: figs. 1, 3, 5-6). Murasato teaches a control unit configured to control a first gas supply unit and a second gas supply unit, and configured to reduce or stop supply of the second gas in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit, so that a concentration of a first gas that inhibits curing of the curable composition becomes higher in a state in which the curable composition is exposed by the exposure unit after the substrate is moved by the moving unit than in a state in which the mold is brought into contact with the curable composition by the planarized film forming operation unit (Murasato: figs. 1, 6; [0044]: control unit 23 that controls the supply of the first/second gas from the first/second gas supply unit 9, 10; [0064]: the control unit 23 controls the first controller 92 of the first supply unit 9 such that the first gas is ejected from the first nozzle 93 selected in step S601 until S605; [0065]: in step S605, the control unit 23 typically terminates the ejection of the first gas from the first nozzle 93 before start of ejection of the second gas from the second nozzle 103; [0067]: in step S607 of curing, the presence of the second gas around the pattern region 43 (i.e., in a region where curing should be avoided) inhibits the curing of the imprint material IM around the pattern region 43). The combination of the Murasato’s gas control with an imprinting apparatus/method of Kasumi is motivated to “accelerate filling of an imprint material in contact with a mold by supplying the first gas and to inhibit curing of the imprint material in outside of a shot region by supplying the second gas after the mold being contacted with the curing resin and until curing” so as to imprint a patterned article with improved precision and control (Murasato: [0003-0005, 0045-0047]), and such motivation is consistent with what the applicants tried to solve (Instant Specification: [0008-0010], as published).
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1 and dependent claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita (US 20190332007 A1) teaches a molding apparatus that molds composition on a substrate including a moving unit configured to hold and move the substrate and a gaseous matter supplying unit (abstract, figs. 1-3).
Bamesberger (US 20200047379 A1) teaches a substrate holder to hold a substrate having a conduit to supply gas (abstract, figs. 2-6).
Suzuki (JP 2019148781 A) teaches an exposure apparatus for manufacturing an article ([0001]). Oxygen concentration meter 9 may be provided in an oxygen supply line 101, a mixing unit 104, and/or in a chamber 11 (figs. 1-3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/INJA SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights