DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/21/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-5 recite the limitations “a PUA mold” and “the PUA molds.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether the “a (single) PUA mold” is formed from the two silicon masters previously recited in claim 1 or an entirely different structure. One cannot ascertain whether the “the PUA molds” are formed from the two silicon masters previously recited in claim 1, wherein two PUA molds are formed, or an entirely different structure. For compact prosecution, the limitation “a PUA mold” recited in claim 1 has been examined as if it read --two PUA molds--. Similarly, the limitation “the PUA molds” recited in claims 1-5 has been examined as if it read --the two PUA molds--.
Claims 3-5 recites the limitations “the soft-PUA precursor” and “the hard-PUA precursor.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --a soft-PUA precursor-- and --a hard-PUA precursor--.
Claims 4-5 recites the limitations “the soft-PUA mold” and “the hard-PUA mold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05(e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read --a soft-PUA mold -- and --a hard-PUA mold --.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “manufacturing the ultra-thin film in which the soft-PUA mold and the soft-PUA mold are separated.” Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether “manufacturing the ultra-thin film” is the same as steps (a)-(d) previously recited in claim 1 or a separate, different, and/or additional step required to manufacture the claimed ultra-thin film.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2019/0112186 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0221385 A1) and as evidenced by Sarkar, R., & Rajagopalan, J., “Synthesis of thin films with highly tailored microstructures” (hereinafter Sarkar).
Regarding claim 1, a method of manufacturing a hierarchical microstructure (method for manufacturing a transparent ultra-thin film) (¶0008-0025,0033-0081). Examiner notes the hierarchical microstructure disclosed in Jang are ultra-thin films as evidenced by Sarkar.
Jang teaches a method of preparing a mold for forming a hierarchical microstructure wherein a first mold and a second mold may be prepared by conventional photolithography methods comprising: applying a curable pre-polymer composition on a nano- or micro-patterned silicon master; curing the applied curable pre-polymer composition; and detaching the cured polymer from the silicon master; wherein the photocurable pre-polymer composition applied on the mold may comprise polyurethane acrylate (PUA); and wherein pre-polymer composition was exposed to a UV ray ((a) supplying a PUA precursor to two silicon masters, respectively, and then curing the PUA precursor by irradiation with ultraviolet ray and (b) separating a PUA mold formed by curing the PUA precursor from the two silicon masters) (¶0036,0054-0059,0071,0075-0078).
Jang teaches a method further comprising preparing a hierarchical microstructure having nanopatterns and micropatterns therein using the prepared mold prepared; wherein the hierarchical microstructure-preparing method using the mold comprises: applying a photocurable pre-polymer composition on the mold for forming a hierarchical microstructure; curing the applied photocurable pre-polymer composition; and detaching the cured polymer product; wherein the photocurable pre-polymer composition applied on the mold may comprise perfluoropolyether (PFPE); and wherein pre-polymer composition was exposed to a UV ray ((c) supplying perfluoropolyether (PFPE) precursor between the PUA molds, and then curing the PEPE precursor by irradiation with the ultraviolet ray and (d) separating the PUA mold to prepare an ultra-thin film in which the PFPE precursor is cured) (¶0065-0069,0071,0079-0081).
While Jang teaches a method of supplying a PUA precursor to the two silicon masters, respectively, Jang does not teach a method of supplying different PUA precursors.
However, reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned (PUA precursors; see MPEP 2141.01(a)), Kim discloses a method wherein to vary a modulus of the substrate, two PUA precursors were used at various weight fractions (supplying different PUA precursors) (¶0044).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed in Jang by supplying one of the two PUA precursors disclosed in Kim to each of the two silicon masters disclosed in Jang with predictable results in order to form two PUA molds with different modulus (see Kim, ¶0044).
Regarding claims 2-3, as applied to claim 1, Jang in view of Kim teaches a method further comprising the silicon master having arrays of a 800 nm-diameter sized nanohole patterns (in the step (a), the silicon master includes a flat silicon base having a predetermined thickness and a plurality of silicon convex members coupled to the upper surface of the silicon base to form a matrix) (Jang, ¶0055,0075,0077).
Jang in view of Kim teaches a method wherein the different PUA precursors include a soft-PUA precursor and a hard-PUA precursor having a lower elastic modulus than that of the soft-PUA precursor (Kim, ¶0044). Examiner notes that the two PUA precursors disclosed in Kim necessarily includes a soft-PUA precursor and a hard-PUA precursor having a lower elastic modulus than that of the soft-PUA precursor in order to vary the modulus of the substrate disclosed in Kim.
Jang in view of Kim teaches a method wherein the PUA mold includes a soft-PUA mold formed by curing the soft-PUA precursor and a hard-PUA mold formed by curing the hard-PUA precursor, the step (a) includes the steps of: (a1) supplying the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA precursor to upper portions of the two silicon masters, respectively; (a2) irradiating the ultraviolet ray toward the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA precursor, respectively; and (a3) curing the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA precursor to form the soft-PUA mold and the hard-PUA mold; the step (b) includes the steps of: (b1) separating the soft-PUA mold from one of the two silicon masters; and (b2) separating the hard-PUA mold from the other of the two silicon masters) (Jang, ¶0036,0054-0059,0071,0075-0078).
Regarding claims 4-5, as applied to claim 1, Jang in view of Kim teaches a method wherein in the step (c), the PUA mold includes the soft-PUA mold formed by curing the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA mold formed by curing the hard-PUA precursor, the step (c) includes the steps of: (c1) supplying the PFPE precursor between the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA precursor; (c2) irradiating the ultraviolet ray toward the PFPE precursor; and (c3) curing the PFPE precursor irradiated with the ultraviolet ray to form the ultra-thin film; wherein in the step (d), the PUA mold includes the soft-PUA mold formed by curing the soft-PUA precursor and the hard-PUA mold formed by curing the hard-PUA precursor, the step (d) includes the steps of: (d1) separating the soft-PUA mold from the ultra-thin film; (d2) supplying a solvent to an edge of the ultra-thin film; (d3) separating the hard-PUA mold from the ultra-thin film; and (d4) manufacturing the ultra-thin film in which the soft-PUA mold and the soft-PUA mold are separated) (Jang, ¶0065-0069,0071,0079-0081).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (US 2022/0008621 A1) discloses a method wherein a droplet of ultraviolet (UV)-curable polyurethane acrylate (PUA) (Changsung Sheet, Korea) precursor solution with a photo-initiator was dropped onto a silicon master mold, on which nano-sized (800 nm) linear grooves and ridges were etched using conventional photolithography and reactive ion etching; wherein after the master mold was exposed to UV light (λ=352 nm, 40 w) for 60 s, the cured nanopatterned PUA replica was peeled off from the master mold using tweezers (¶0059)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743