DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/23/2026, claims 1-33 are pending. Claims 1 and 24 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 Claims 31-33 are withdrawn.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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “the parti[[c]]ally cured casting” (line 14).
Claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Accordingly, claim 1 should be corrected to by exchanging the first uppercase letter of each step (a through f) into a respective lowercase letter. Also, claim 10 should be corrected to “1-[[H]]hydroxycyclohexyl” (line 3) and “4-[[H]]hydroxybenzophenone” (line 4).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
PNG
media_image1.png
604
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated figure 3 of Instant Specification.)]Claim 1 recites the limitation “directly after removing the parti[[c]]ally cured casting from the mold layer, subjecting the removed partially cured casting to a second curing step” in lines 14-15. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as follows: “no other action or step is applied to the partially cured casting after the removing (step e) (i.e., in a removing position marked as a solid arrow below in the annotated fig. 3) and before the second curing (step f) (i.e., in a second curing position marked as a dotted arrow below in the annotated fig. 3) except conveying the partially cured casting into the second curing station (50) within a reasonably immediate time in aid of a guiding/pulling roller (e.g., demolding roller 40 in fig. 3), if necessary” (Instant Specification: [0032] and fig. 3, as published).
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 1-10, 20-22, 25-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US 20180079521 A1) in view of Wang (CN 106444275 A).
Regarding claim 1, Benson teaches a method of roll-to-roll manufacturing of a 3D-patterned microstructure (e.g., figs. 2, 5, 17, 20 and claim 12), the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing a UV-curable material, the UV-curable material being castable (claim 12: at least partially filling the plurality of cavities with a radiation curable resin disposed on a first major surface of an overlay element; [0106]: UV curable polymeric materials);
b) providing a mold layer comprising a microstructured mold top layer, [the microstructured mold top layer being flexible] (claim 12: providing a first molding tool having a first microstructured surface including a plurality of cavities; [0166]: e.g., the tool of a nickel plate);
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 (claim 12: at least partially filling the plurality of cavities with a radiation curable resin disposed on a first major surface of an overlay element; [0105-0107]: UV curable polymeric materials);
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 partially cured microstructured surface is not fully cured (claim 12: exposing the radiation curable resin to a first, patterned irradiation to provide a partially cured composite comprising the overlay element adhered to a correspondingly patterned partially cured resin comprising at least one first region and at least one second region, wherein the at least one first region is irradiated by the first, patterned irradiation and the at least one second region is not irradiated by the first, patterned irradiation; [0017]: “partially cured” refers to part of a radiation curable resin being cured to such a degree that it will not substantially flow)
e) removing the partially cured casting from the mold layer, thereby providing a removed partially cured casting (claim 12: separating the partially cured composite from the molding tool, such that at least a portion of curable resin from the at least one second region remains in the molding tool, providing the separated partially cured composite); and
f) directly after removing the 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 fully cured microstructured surface is fully cured (claim 12: exposing the partially cured composite that was separated from the molding tool to a second irradiation, to provide a composite article having a first microstructured surface and a differentially cured pattern therein; here, it is implied or at least obvious the first microstructured surface of the composite article is fully cured in its final article in order to ensure maximum material strength, stability, and functional performance of the microstructured patterns thereon).
Benson does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., a first curing step [at an UV intensity of 10,000 mW/cm2 or less], and [the microstructured mold top layer being flexible]. However, Wang teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
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: 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 partially cured 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). Wang also teaches that the microstructured mold top layer being flexible ([0095]: the template is a PDMS reverse film).
In the same field of endeavor of roll-to-roll manufacturing of a 3D-patterned microstructure (Benson: abstract, claim 12, figs. 2, 5, 17, 20; Wang: figs. 1-2 and [0002]), both Benson and Wang teaches to use a UV-curable material as a pattern forming material with an appropriate radiation source (Benson: [0104-0107]; Wang: [0044-0046, 0096]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the first curing UV intensity of Benson to be in a range for partial curing, e.g., 80-2000 mW/cm2 as taught by Wang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a partially cured microstructured surface upon the first curing within an allowed curing time. Moreover, it would have been also obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to substitute the nickel plate of the microstructured mold layer of Benson to another known flexible mold layer made of PDMS as taught by Wang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming the mold top layer in a reduced cost, to be more conformable to a roller surface, facilitating easier demolding with lower surface energy upon rolling of the mold roller.
Regarding claims 2-5, modified Benson 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, modified Benson’s UV-“curable” material is the same as the one as disclosed in Instant Specification (Benson: [0104-0107]: acrylic resin such as polyurethane acrylate; see also, Instant Specification: [0007, 0106-0107], as published) and modified Benson’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 modified Benson. 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, modified Benson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV-curable material comprises an acrylic resin (Benson: [0107]: acrylic-based resins).
Regarding claim 7, modified Benson 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 (Benson: [0105-0107]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Benson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV-curable material further comprises a photoinitiator (Benson: [0100-0102, 0158]: photoinitiator).
Regarding claim 9, modified Benson 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 (Benson: [0100-0102, 0158]: photoinitiator in a range from 0.1 wt. % to 10 wt. %). Here, although modified Benson’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 10, modified Benson 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, diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide, and/or 4-Hydroxybenzophenone (Benson: [0100-0102, 0158]: photoinitiator, e.g., TPO).
Regarding claim 20, modified Benson 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 mold top layer of modified Benson (Wang: [0095]: PDMS) is the same as the mold top layer of Instant Specification (Instant Specification: [0140-0412]: a mold top layer made of PDMS having a moderate transparency towards IV lights), and thus, the recited property is implied or at least obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the PDMS layer has the recited UV transmission.
Regarding claim 21, modified Benson 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, modified Benson teaches that the microstructured mold top layer is a PDMS film (Wang: [0095]: PDMS), 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 22, modified Benson 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 (Wang: [0095]: PDMS).
Regarding claim 25, modified Benson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the UV intensity during the first curing step is [about 50 mW/cm2 or less] (Benson: claim 12: first irradiation to provide a partially cured composite; Wang: [0074, 0097, 0110]: primary curing (semi-curing); [0065]: UV light dose required for curing and semi-curing the UV curing adhesive is 80-2000 mW/cm2). Here, although the claimed range of the UV intensity does not overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by modified Benson’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 partial 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, modified Benson 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 (Benson: [0086]: UV radiation referring to radiation having a wavelength within the range of about 200 to about 400 nm; [0180]: e.g., in Example 5, first curing using a Fusion “D” UV lamp; Wang: [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, modified Benson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a UV intensity during the second curing step is about 1.5 mW/cm2 or more (Benson: claim 12: exposing the partially cured composite separated from the molding tool to a second irradiation to provide a composite article; [0180]: e.g., in Example 5, second curing using a UV lamp; Wang: [0074, 0097, 0110]: 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).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the second curing of Benson to be in a range UV curing intensity for complete curing, e.g., 80-2000 mW/cm2 as taught by Wang in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of forming a completely cured microstructured surface upon the second curing within an allowed curing time.
Regarding claim 28, Modified Benson 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 (Benson: claim 12: exposing the partially cured composite separated from the molding tool to a second irradiation to provide a composite article; [0086]: UV radiation referring to radiation having a wavelength within the range of about 200 to about 400 nm; [0180]: e.g., in Example 5, second curing using a UV lamp; Wang: [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, modified Benson teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein at least about 50% of the microstructured surface of the partially cured casting is uncured (Benson: claim 12: providing a partially cured composite upon first exposure; Wang: [0074, 0097, 0110]: primary curing (semi-curing)). Here, although modified Benson does not explicitly an exact percent ratio of uncured material, it is implied or at least obvious that a partially-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 Benson (US 20180079521 A1) and Wang (CN 106444275 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lan (WO 2017059745 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Benson 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 modified Benson 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 Benson 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 Benson 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, modified Benson 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 Benson (US 20180079521 A1) and Wang (CN 106444275 A) as applied to claim 1, and further 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, modified Benson 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 modified Benson 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 Benson 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 Benson 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 Benson 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 Benson 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 Benson (US 20180079521 A1) and Wang (CN 106444275 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Guo (US 20090046362 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Benson 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 (Benson: claim 12: at least partially filling the plurality of cavities with a radiation curable resin disposed on a first major surface; e.g., figs. 5 and [0060]: overlay element 521 is nipped against radiation curable resin 530 using roll 524; here, it is implied that a pressure is applied in the filling). However, modified Benson 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 modified Benson 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 Benson 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 (Benson: [0060]: overlay element 521 is nipped against radiation curable resin 530 using roll 524; [0110]: overlay element may be a polymeric film; e.g., [0168, 0170, 0173, 0183]: PET film as an overlay film or a carrier film).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson (US 20180079521 A1) and Wang (CN 106444275 A) as applied to claim 28, and further in view of Boldt (US 7,220,786 B1).
Regarding claim 29, modified Benson 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 modified Benson 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 with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not moot because the new ground of rejection has been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment filed on 04/23/2026.
The basis of the applicant’s argument is based upon the changes regarding no further action(s) or step(s) between step e) of removing and step f) of second curing. After further search and reconsideration, Benson is applied the rejection as a primary teaching reference. Thus, when Benson’s teaching is modified in view of Wang, modified Benson does teach/suggest all the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine. Thereby, after reconsideration, claim remains rejected.
Of note, the Examiner proposed claim amendment during a phone interview on 04/28/2026, but no agreement was reached. The Examiner hereby withdraws any prior statements regarding allowable subject matters that were discussed during the last phone interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chesley (US 5,785,784 A) teaches an abrasive sheet article and a method of making the article (abstract, figs. 19, 20).
Poulakis (US 7,008,589 B1) teaches a method and a device for producing a fastener parts from radiation curable materials (abstract, fig. 1).
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.
Prosecution Insights