DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/08/2025, claims 1-33 are pending. Claims 1-5, 13-14, 16-19, 22-24, 27, and 29-30 are currently amended. No claim is canceled, and no claim is newly added. Claims 31-33 are withdrawn. Claims 1-30 are 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, 24, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “a the microstructure surface” (line 15).
Claim 24 should be corrected to “[[the]] top of the UV-curable material” (line 2) and “the top of the UV-curable material” (line 3).
Claim 30 should be corrected to “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 106444275 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method of roll-to-roll manufacturing of a 3D-patterned microstructure (figs. 1-2 and [0002]: a roll-to-roll ultraviolet nanoimprint device and a method for preparing a super-liquid-repellent surface microstructure), the method comprising the steps of:
a) Providing a UV-curable material, the UV-curable material being castable (figs. 1, 2; [0094]: UV curing glue in glue tank 5; [0055]: step 3’);
b) Providing a mold layer comprising a microstructured mold top layer, the microstructured mold top layer being flexible (figs. 1, 2; [0095]: the surface of the first embossing roller 9 has a nanostructured pattern, a template with a desired pattern is applied to the surface of the first embossing roller 9, and the template is a PDMS reverse film; [0205]: a soft template such as a PDMS template);
c) Filling at least one part of the microstructured mold top layer with the UV-curable material, thereby providing a raw casting of the mold layer, the raw casting comprising the UV-curable material ([0056]: step 4’ - using the first roller pressing device to emboss the substrate film coated with the UV curing adhesive, so that the nanostructure pattern on the first embossing roller is embossed onto the UV curing adhesive; of note, here, it is implied that at least one part of the microstructured mold top layer is filled with the UV-curable material);
d) Subjecting the raw casting to a first curing step at an UV intensity of 10,000 mW/cm2 or less, thereby providing a partially cured casting having a microstructured surface, wherein at least one part of the microstructured surface is not fully cured ([0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing); [0065]: UV light dose required for curing and semi-curing the UV curing adhesive is 80-2000 mW/cm2; here, the disclosed UV intensity anticipates the recited range);
e) Removing the partially cured casting from the mold layer, thereby providing a removed partially cured casting ([0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing));
f) Subjecting the removed partially cured casting to a second curing step, thereby providing a fully cured casting having the microstructured surface, wherein a total of the microstructured surface is fully cured ([0059, 0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing)).
Regarding claims 2-5, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the UV-curable material as being fully cured has a Young's modulus of about 100 GPa or less (claim 2), the UV-curable material as being fully cured has a Young's modulus in the range of from about 0.1 MPa to about 100 MPa (claim 3), the UV-curable material as being fully cured has an elongation at break value of 900% or less (claim 4), and the UV-curable material as being fully cured has an elongation at break value in the range of from about 900% to about 10% (claim 5).
In this case, Wang’s UV-“curable” material is the same as the one as disclosed in Instant Specification (Wang: [0044]: acrylic resin such as polyurethane acrylate; see also, Instant Specification: [0007, 0106-0107], as published) and Wang’s UV-“cured” material is produced by the identical process as recited in claim 1. Therefore, a prima facie case of anticipation is established to the claimed property (i.e., a Young’s modulus and an elongation at break value) by Wang. See MPEP 2112.01 I. (Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV-curable material comprises an acrylic resin ([0044]: aliphatic polyurethane acrylate: 20% to 90%, bisphenol A epoxy acrylate: 0 to 20%).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV-curable material comprises polyurethane acrylate, silicone, polyvinylsiloxane, perfluoropolyether, polydimethyl siloxane, synthetic rubber, natural rubber, liquid crystal elastomer, butyl rubber, biological elastomer, protein, shape memory polymer, conductive polymer, magnetorheological elastomer, zwitterionic polymer, styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene, foam elastomer, and/or composite polymer comprising micrometer or nanometer-sized particle, colloid, fiber, tube, sheet, wire, fabric, bubble, and/or clay ([0044]: aliphatic polyurethane acrylate: 20% to 90%, bisphenol A epoxy acrylate: 0 to 20%).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the UV-curable material further comprises a photoinitiator ([0044]: photoinitiator: 1% to 15%).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the photoinitiator is selected from the group consisting of 2-hydroxy-2-methylpropiophenone, and/or type I photoinitiator comprising 1-Hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone, diphe-nyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide, and/or 4-Hydroxybenzophenone ([0045]: 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone is a photoinitiator).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the microstructured mold top layer comprises polyvinylsiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane, polyurethane acrylate, butyl rubber, liquid crystal elastomer, fluorinated silicone, silicone rubber, and/or perfluoropolyether; and/or wherein the microstructured mold top layer is opaque ([0095]: PDMS).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 20-21, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106444275 A).
Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the photoinitiator is present in an amount of from about 1 wt % to about 8 wt % based on a total mass of the UV-curable material ([0044]: photoinitiator: 1% to 15%). Here, although Wang’s disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 1 wt % to 8 wt %. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the microstructured mold top layer has a UV transmission of about 80% or less. However, the first curing device 11 is set inside of the first embossing roller 9 where the mold layer is placed thereon (figs. 1, 2 and [0096]). Thus, it is implied that the microstructure mold top layer has at least UV transmission (i.e., at most 100 % and at least more than 0%). Thus, although Wang’s disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range of 80 % or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the microstructured mold top layer has an oxygen transmission rate of 100 cc/m2/24 hrs or more. However, Wang teaches that the microstructured mold top layer is a PDMS film (Wang: [0095]), wherein the PDMS is a known highly oxygen permeable material1. Moreover, the disclosed PDMS is the same materials as one of preferred embodiment of the listed materials of Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0145-0147], as published). Thus, it is implied or at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the PDMS film has an oxygen transmission rate of 100 cc/m2/24 hrs or more.
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV intensity during the first curing step is [about 50 mW/cm2 or less] ([0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing); [0065]: UV light dose required for curing and semi-curing the UV curing adhesive is 80-2000 mW/cm2; [0167-0168]: diameters of the first rolling embossing roller and the second embossing roller, and the required UV dose for semi-curing or full curing). Here, although the claimed range of the UV intensity does not overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by Wang’s range, the claimed ranges are merely close to the disclosed range in the same order of the 50 mW/cm2.
Moreover, the UV intensity during the first curing step is a result-effective variable (i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B)). For example, a level of intensity is determined by “required UV dose” for semi-curing (i.e., not to be fully cured) in consideration of an irradiation time depending on set-up of an apparatus such as a diameter of roller, a speed of roller, a contact time of the roller with a UV-curable material, and/or an irradiation area of UV light, etc. Thus, through routine optimization and experiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first curing intensity would be adjusted in consideration of the required UV dose for a semi-curing and the time to be exposed to the UV intensity.
Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first curing step is carried out at a UV wavelength of from about 320 nm to about 390 nm ([0096]: first UV curing device using a UV (with a wavelength of 100-400 nanometers)2 lamp light source). Here, although the disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, but the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 320 to 390 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 27, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a UV intensity during the second curing step is about 1.5 mW/cm2 or more ([0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing); [0065]: UV light dose required for curing and semi-curing the UV curing adhesive is 80-2000 mW/cm2). Here, although the disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, but the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 80-2000 mW/cm2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 28, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the second curing step is carried out at a UV wavelength of from about 320 nm to about 220 nm ([0107]: second UV curing device using a UV (with a wavelength of 100-400 nanometers)3 lamp light source). Here, although the disclosed range does not anticipate the recited range, but the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range between 220 to 320 nm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 30, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least about 50% of the microstructured surface of the partially cured casting is uncured ([0074, 0097, 0110]: UV curing adhesive coating - primary curing (semi-curing) - demolding - secondary curing (complete curing)). Here, although Wang does not explicitly an exact percent ratio of uncured material, it is implied or at least obvious that a semi-cured UV-curable material would have about 50 % of uncured material among the overall material.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106444275 A) in view of Lan (WO 2017059745 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the mold layer further comprises a bottom layer and at least one intermediate layer, the at least one intermediate layer being situated between the microstructured mold top layer and the bottom layer.
Lan teaches a device and a method for manufacturing of large-area micro-nano structures based on roller-assisted soft molds (pg. 1). The soft molds 6 attached on the roller comprises a bottom layer 603 and at least one intermediate layer 602, the at least one intermediate layer being situated between the microstructured mold top layer 601 and the bottom layer (fig. 4, pg. 23-24).
In the same field of endeavor as manufacturing of micro- or nano- patterned structures, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the mold layer of Wang to have another known structure laminate structure comprising a bottom layer, at least one intermediate layer, and a microstructured mold top layer as taught by Lan in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of integrating microstructured patterns of the mold layer to a roller to form a patterned structure in large area.
Regarding claim 12, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the bottom layer is a PET layer, and wherein the at least one intermediate layer comprises an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a double-sided tape (Lan: fig. 4 and pg. 23-24: the support layer 603 can be made of highly elastic and transparent materials such as PDMS, PET, PC, etc., the support layer 603 is subjected to surface modification treatment or coated with a layer of transparent coupling material 602). Here, the transparent coupling material 602 satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a double-sided tape” as the material 602 is coated as a layer and couples the support layer 603 and the graphic area 601.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the microstructured mold top layer has a height of 5000 μm or less (Lan: fig. 4 and pg. 23-24: the thickness of the graphic layer 601 is in the range of 10-50 microns). Here, the disclosed range of height anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the microstructured mold top layer is not metal-based (Lan: fig. 4 and pg. 23-24: the graphic layer 601 can be made of h-PDMS, fluoropolymer-based materials with low surface energy and high elastic modulus, ETFE, etc.).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106444275 A) in view of Yi (Yi et. al., “Continuous and Scalable Fabrication of Bioinspired Dry Adhesives via a Roll-to-Roll Process with Modulated Ultraviolet-Curable Resin,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2014, 6, 14590−14599, published on 08/13/2014).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the microstructured mold top layer comprises micrometer-sized cavities having a mean cavity depth, a mean cavity upper diameter, and a mean cavity lower diameter; wherein the mean cavity upper diameter is a mean diameter of an upper end of the cavity; wherein the mean cavity lower diameter is a mean diameter of a lower end of the cavity; and wherein the cavities are uniformly arranged to one another with a mean center to center distance of 5000 μm or less with hexagonal array.
Yi teaches a method for fabricating micro- or nano- structures in combination of the roll-to-roll process (abstract and introduction). Yi teaches that the microstructured mold top layer comprises micrometer-sized cavities having a mean cavity depth (∼40 μm), a mean cavity upper diameter (corresponding to a post diameter of the micropillars), and a mean cavity lower diameter (corresponding to a tip diameter of the micropillars); wherein the mean cavity upper diameter is a mean diameter of an upper end of the cavity; wherein the mean cavity lower diameter is a mean diameter of a lower end of the cavity; and wherein the cavities are uniformly arranged to one another with a mean center to center distance of 5000 μm or less with hexagonal array (fig. 1(a) and fig. 3(b): “Flexible patterned PIA mold” as shown in fig. 1(a) having a plurality of cavities corresponding to the negative patterns of the micropillars as shown in fig. 3(b) pg. 14592: Fabrication of a Patterned Flexible PUA Mold; pg. 14595; e.g., mushroom-shaped micropillars with heights of up to ∼40 μm and 20 to 40 micros in space with a hexagonal array).
In the same field of endeavor as fabricating micro- or nano structures using a roll-to-roll process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the microstructure mold top layer of Wang to have a known template structure as taught by Yi in order to yield known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of fabricating mushroom-like microstructures on a film (Yi: derived from Introduction).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the mean cavity depth is about 100 μm or less (Yi: fig. 1(a) and fig. 3(b); pg. 14595; e.g., mushroom-shaped micropillars with heights of up to ∼40 μm and 20 to 40 micros in space with a hexagonal array). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the mean cavity upper diameter is about 100 μm or less (Yi: fig. 1(a) and fig. 3(b); pg. 14595; e.g., mushroom-shaped micropillars with 17 or 22 micros of tip diameter and 15 or 22 micros of post diameter). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 18, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the mean cavity lower diameter is about 150 μm or less (Yi: fig. 1(a) and fig. 3(b); pg. 14595; e.g., mushroom-shaped micropillars with 17 or 22 micros of tip diameter and 15 or 22 micros of post diameter). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 19, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 15, wherein the cavities are mushroom-shaped, cylindrical, truncated cone-shaped, wedge-shaped, flap-shaped, or combinations thereof (Yi: fig. 1(a) and fig. 3(b); pg. 14595).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106444275 A) in view of Guo (US 20090046362 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
in step c) the at least one part of the microstructured mold top layer is filled with the UV-curable material by pressing the UV-curable material onto the microstructured mold top layer with a pressure [of 0.01 MPa or more], thereby filling at least one part of cavities of the microstructured mold top layer (figs. 1, 2 and [0101]: the microstructure on the embossing template and the adhesive to be pressed or bonded so that the UV-curing adhesive to fully enter the micro-structure cavity). However, Wang does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above.
Guo teaches apparatus and methods for a nano-patterning process to fabricate nanostructures using a roller type mold (abstract). Guo teaches that for a fast roll-to-roll process, a liquid resist having good coating properties coated on a substrate is easily imprinted with low pressure, for example at pressures of 0.1 MPa or less ([0079]), and soft PDMS stamp 300 is used for roll-to-roll nanoimprint process (fig. 15 and [0039, 0126]). Although the disclosed range of pressure does not anticipate the recited range, the disclosed range overlaps with the recited range in the range between 0.01 MPa and 0.1 MPa. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
In the same field of endeavor as fabricating micro- or nano structures using a roll-to-roll process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the pressure applied to a patterning roller and its supporting roller of Wang to be in a known range of applied pressure as taught by Guo in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a structured pattern using a soft roll-to-roll imprinting process (Guo: derived from [0079]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Wang teaches the method according to claim 23, wherein a PET layer is situated on top of the UV-curable material and the pressure is applied to the PET layer situated on the top of the UV-curable material, thereby filling the at least one part of the cavities of the microstructured mold top layer with the UV-curable material (Wang: figs. 1, 2 and [0092-0094, 0101]: the substrate film 16 is a PET film).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 106444275 A) in view of Boldt (US 7,220,786 B1).
Regarding claim 29, Wang teaches the method according to claim 28, but does not specifically teach that the UV wavelength applied during the second curing step is smaller than a UV wavelength applied during the first curing step.
Boldt teaches UV curable radiation curable coatings (col. 2 lines 22-23). Boldt teaches that a UV wavelength applied during the second curing step is smaller than a UV wavelength applied during the first curing step (col. 9 lines 13-24: useful curing process uses a first set of UV lamps having type D bulbs (longer wavelength UV light), and a second set of UV lamps having type H or H+ bulbs (shorter wavelength UV light). Although not bound to any particular theory, it is believed that an initial exposure to UV lamps having type D bulbs cures the interior portions of the coating layer and adheres the coating to the surfaces of the plates 12, 14, 16. Subsequent exposure to UV lamps having type H or H+ bulbs cures the outer portions of the coating layer. While the two-step curing process produces a satisfactory coating, curing under an inert nitrogen atmosphere may enhance coating 50 properties).
In the same field of endeavor as being reasonably pertinent to UV curing of UV-curable material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the first and second UV curing of Wang to have a longer-wavelength first UV curing and followed by a shorter-wavelength second UV curing, compared to each other, as taught by Boldt in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of curing a UV curable material in a satisfactory manner by an initial deeper interior curing followed by a quick curing in an outer portion (Boldt: derived from col. 9 lines 13-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues (see pages 10-11 of Remarks) that Wang does not disclose or suggest the step d) “a partial curing of a microstructured surface” and the step f) “a fully curing of the microstructured surface” as recited in claim 1 because (A) Wang discloses a deformation step included between the first semi-curing and the second full-curing, and (B) Instant Invention is directed to producing a “fully patterned” microstructure on a final product without deformation step, and claim 1 requires the removed partially cured casting from the mold layer being directly subjected to the second curing step.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
At first, the preamble of claim 1 – i.e., “the method comprising the steps of” are presumptively open-ended. The transitional phrase “comprising” does not limit the scope of the instant claim 1 only requires the recited steps. Thus, existence of an additional step in Wang, which is different from Instant Invention, does not negate the teaching of the reference.
Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “fully patterned microstructure on a final product,” “without a deformation step between the partial curing (step d) and the full curing (step f),” and/or “directly to the full curing (step f) after removing from a mold layer (step e)” ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 1 remains 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.
Benson, JR (US 20150079521 A1) teaches method for making differentially pattern cured microstructured articles (abstract, figs. 2, 17, 20).
Muramoto (US 20230228915 A1) teaches a method for manufacturing an optical film ([0001], fig. 13).
Mizukami (US 20150336324 A1) teaches a method for manufacturing an imprint mold which can prevent accumulation of the transferring resin onto the transferring roll (abstract, figs. 1-12).
Tazaki (US 20150079341 A1) teaches a fabrication method of a resin compact including an uneven pattern on its surface ([0002], fig. 4).
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 at (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 As evidenced by Kennedy (US 20080233006 A): [0007]: PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane) occupies a special position among highly oxygen permeable materials. It has by far the highest oxygen permeability (Dk value) among rubbers and has the second highest Dk among all polymers (currently the highest Dk of all polymeric materials is exhibited by poly[1-(trimethylsilyl)-1-propyne])
2 As evidenced by Wikipedia – “ultraviolet”: radiation of wavelength of 10-400 nanometers.
3 As evidenced by Wikipedia – “ultraviolet”: radiation of wavelength of 10-400 nanometers.