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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wakabayashi does not teach pre-contact determination, but Wakabayashi explicitly notes feed forward determination of a position [0033, 0039] as well as simulation [0047, 0048, 0041-0045]. As all the claimed elements are identified as results effective variables (mold pressure, wafer pressure, tilt, contact position), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the values such that it minimized an evaluation function based on the function expressing the contact position, in order to control the deformation amount and contact position such that the mold conforms to the shape of substrate and further this would just be routine experimentation, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2016/0297136).
As to claim 1, Wakabayashi teaches an imprint method that forms a pattern of an imprint material in each of a plurality of shot regions of a substrate using a mold [Abstract], the apparatus comprising: a mold holding unit (8a, 8b) configured to hold the mold (3a); a deformation unit (11) configured to deform a pattern surface of the mold by adjusting a pressure of a closed space (10) defined between a surface of the mold opposite to the pattern surface and the mold holding unit in a state in which the mold is held by the mold holding unit; and a determination/adjustment unit (15) configured to control a shape of the pattern surface by adjusting the pressure of the closed space by the deformation unit in accordance with a position of the shot region to make the shape of the pattern surface conform to a surface shape of the shot region when forming the pattern in each of the plurality of shot regions [Abstract, 0031, 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059]. Wakabayashi predetermining position and tilt via the a determination/adjustment unit [0026, 0027, 0047], wherein the control unit controls the shape of the pattern surface by adjusting the pressure of the closed space by the deformation unit to make the shape of the pattern surface conform to the surface shape of the shot region based on the shape information obtained by the obtaining unit [0026-0028, 0031, 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059]. Wakabayashi teaches determining the contact position [0039] is inclusive of determining pressure values and tilt are determined in advance (simulation)[0040-0042]. The pressure applied to the substrate is "lower than its external pressure" [0053] which would be below atmosphere while the pressure applied to the cavity is above the external pressure. Hence, the pressure applied to the cavity must be larger than that applied to the substrate [0053]. Wakabayashi teaches the pressure applied to the mold is positive [Fig 11] and the pressure applied to the substrate was negative [Fig 11]. Wakabayashi teaches a determination/adjustment unit (15) configured to control a shape of the pattern surface by adjusting the pressure of the closed space by the deformation unit in accordance with a position of the shot region to make the shape of the pattern surface conform to a surface shape of the shot region when forming the pattern in each of the plurality of shot regions [Abstract, 0031, 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059]. Wakabayashi predetermining position and tilt via the a determination/adjustment unit [0026, 0027, 0047], wherein the control unit controls the shape of the pattern surface by adjusting the pressure of the closed space by the deformation unit to make the shape of the pattern surface conform to the surface shape of the shot region based on the shape information obtained by the obtaining unit [0026-0028, 0031, 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059]. Wakabayashi teaches determining the contact position [0039] is inclusive of determining pressure values and tilt are determined in advance (simulation)[0040-0042]. The pressure applied to the substrate is "lower than its external pressure" [0053] which would be below atmosphere while the pressure applied to the cavity is above the external pressure. Hence, the pressure applied to the cavity must be larger than that applied to the substrate [0053]. Wakabayashi teaches determining a target position, in other words the contact position, using feed forward control [0036, 0039]. Wakabayashi does not explicitly state the determining includes obtaining the pressure values and the relative tilt amount that minimize an evaluation function based on the function expressing the contact position. However Wakabayashi teaches that tilt and pressure values are result effective variables on the deformation and contact position/barycenter such that the mold conformed to the shape of the substrate [0039-0042, 0026-0028, 0031, 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059]. It is well settled that the determination of the optimum value of a result effective variable, in this case tilt and pressure values, is within the skill of one practicing art, see MPEP § 2144.05 II. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure values and tilt such that it minimized an evaluation function based on the function expressing the contact position, in order to control the deformation amount and contact position such that the mold conforms to the shape of substrate and further this would just be routine experimentation.
As to claim 3, Wakabayashi teaches the substrate includes a partial shot region having a smaller area than a pattern region of the mold, and in the imprint process with respect to the partial shot region, in the determining, the pressure values to be applied to the mold and the substrate, respectively, by the deformation unit and the relative tilt amount between the mold and the substrate to be adjusted by the adjustment unit are determined, by using the function, such that a contact position to start a contact between the mold and the imprint material on the substrate matches a target position [0033-0040, 0021, 0025, 0030, 0031 Fig 11].
As to claim 4, Wakabayashi teaches the substrate includes a plurality of shot regions including the partial shot region and a full shot region having an area equal to that of the pattern region of the mold, and the determining includes specifying the partial shot region based on information indicating an array of the plurality of shot regions [0033-0040, Fig 11].
As to claim 5, Wakabayashi teaches the deformation unit includes a mold deformation mechanism (11) configured to deform the mold into a convex shape toward a side of the substrate by applying a pressure to a back surface of the mold, and a substrate deformation mechanism (24) configured to deform the substrate into a convex shape toward a side of the mold by applying a pressure to a back surface of the substrate, and in the determining, a pressure value to be applied to the back surface of the mold by the mold deformation mechanism, and a pressure value to be applied to the back surface of the substrate by the substrate deformation mechanism are determined such that the contact position to start the contact between the mold and the imprint material on the substrate matches the target position [0026-0028, 0031, 0033-0040 0047,0048, 0053, 0058, 0059, Fig 11].
As to claim 6, Wakabayashi teaches the adjustment unit includes a mold driving mechanism configured to tilt the mold with respect to the substrate by driving the mold, and in the determining, a tilt amount of the mold to be tilted with respect to the substrate by the mold driving mechanism is determined such that the contact position to start the contact between the mold and the imprint material on the substrate matches the target position [0026].
As to claim 10, Wakabayashi teaches an article manufacturing method comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate using an imprint method defined in claim 1; processing the substrate on which the pattern is formed in the forming; and manufacturing an article from the processed substrate [0063].
As to claim 13, Wakabayashi teaches in a case where a target shot region is a partial shot region having a smaller area than a pattern region of the mold, the target position is a centroid position of the target shot region on the substrate [0033, 0039, 0041, claims 2, 10, Fig 5, 7, 10, 11].
The examiner notes that while Wakabayashi discloses the feature, the term “in a case” renders the subsequent limitation contingent limitation that need not actually occur, see MPEP 2111.04.
Claim 14, Wakabayashi teaches a target shot region is a partial shot region having a smaller area than a pattern region of the mold, the target position is a middle point in the target shot region located on a line connecting a center portion of the mold and a center portion of the substrate [0033, 0039, 0041, claims 2, 10, Fig 5, 7, 10, 11].
The examiner notes that while Wakabayashi discloses the feature, the term “in a case” renders the subsequent limitation contingent limitation that need not actually occur, see MPEP 2111.04.
As to claim 15, Wakabayashi teaches in a case where a target shot region is a full shot region having an area equal to a pattern region of the mold, the target position is a center position of the mold substrate [0033, 0039, 0041, claims 2, 10, Fig 1, 2].
The examiner notes that while Wakabayashi discloses the feature, the term “in a case” renders the subsequent limitation contingent limitation that need not actually occur, see MPEP 2111.04.
As to claim 16, Wakabayashi teaches the determining includes: determining, in a case where a target shot region is a partial shot region having a smaller area than a pattern region of the mold, the target position as a centroid position of the target shot region on the substrate or as a middle point in the target shot region located on a line connecting a center portion of the mold and a center portion of the substrate; and determining, in a case where the target shot region is a full shot region having an area equal to a pattern region of the mold, the target position as a center position of the mold [0033, 0039, 0041, claims 2, 10, Fig 1, 2].
The examiner notes that while Wakabayashi discloses the feature, the term “in a case” renders the subsequent limitation contingent limitation that need not actually occur, see MPEP 2111.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights