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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Wakabayashi does not teach the branched determination of the target position but Wakabayashi discloses a procedure for both full shot regions [0026, 0039] and partial shot regions [0052-0054]. Furthermore, as can be seen in Fig 11, the first point of contact would be on a line between the center of the mold and the center of the substrate. Wakabayashi notes that the calculated contact position function is made to match the target position [0040], in other words, the difference or error between the calculated contact position and target position is minimized “ the control unit 15 causes the first deformation unit 11 to deform the pattern region 3a of the mold 3 into the convex shape, and controls the relative tilts between the mold 3 and the substrate 2 so as to start contact between the pattern region 3a and the imprint material 5 from the target portion 21 of the target shot region” [0040]. Applicant argues that these are all for the purpose of determining deformation curvature [0040], but this is so the actual contact position matches the target position previously determined [0039], in other words minimizing the difference between a calculated contact position and target position. Applicant further argues that the contact position is not determined prior to imprinting but the deformation and tilt are clearly determined prior to contact (s104) [Fig 4].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The terms “error” or “deviation” do not appear in the specification. The examiner is unable to locate within the specification the evaluation function including an error between a contact position output by a contact-position and the target position. The examiner requests applicant supply argumentation as to where this information is located or argumentation as to why it would be inferred from the specification.
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, 4, 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi (US 2016/0297136) and Iwatani (US 2018/0017874).
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 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 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.
Wakabayashi teaches a pressure adjustment unit (24) multiple substrate chucking units ie the mechanism that generates the vacuum suction force [0026, 0027] and the pipe holes connected to the 2nd deformation unit (24) that transform the substrate into a convex shape [Fig 8, 9]. However, Iwatani does not explicitly state the multiple substrate chucking units are configured to impart a positive pressure to create the convex shape.
Iwatani teaches a method of imprinting [Abstract] wherein multiple substrate chucking units (201a, 201b, 201c) as this allows for the substrate to be deformed into a desired shape both for imprinting and release as well as chucking substrate to the holder [0041-0045, Fig 3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Wakabayashi and included multiple substrate chucking units configured to apply positive pressure to a convex shape, as suggested by Iwatani, in order to aid in imprinting and release as well as chucking substrate to the holder.
Wakabayashi teaches identifying, before the mold and the substrate are brought into contact with each other, whether the target shot region on the substrate is a partial shot region having a smaller area than a pattern region of the mold or a full shot region having an area equal to the pattern region of the mold based on imaging [0038, 0039]; setting, before the mold and the substrate are brought into contact with each other, a target position to start a contact between the mold and the imprint material on the substrate, the target position for the full shot region being a center position of the mold [0034] and the target position for the partial shot region beinq 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 inclusive of a middle point in the target shot region located on a line connecting a center portion of the mold and substrate [0061, 0062, Fig 11]. Wakabayashi teaches the pressures[0041, 0042] and tilt values are determined prior to contact [0034, Fig 4]. Wakabayashi notes that the calculated contact position function is made to match the target position [0040], in other words, the difference or error between the calculated contact position and target position is minimized. This calculation function takes into account mold pressure [0042], substrate pressure[0058, 0062], and relative tilt [0041]. Additionally, for a full shot region this would take the calculation function takes into account mold pressure [0042], substrate pressure which is negative phrased as vacuum suction[0026, 0027, 0058], and relative tilt [0041] such that the mold and substrate are parallel [0026, 0039].
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 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].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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