Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/423,426

MEASUREMENT METHOD, SHAPING DEVICE, SIMULATOR, MEASUREMENT DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Examiner
SMITH, MAURICE C
Art Unit
2877
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
594 granted / 704 resolved
+16.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -2% lift
Without
With
+-2.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
737
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.3%
+7.3% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “shaping device” “pressing unit” “a measurement unit configured to measure” & “a calculation unit configured to calculate” in claim 13. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant teaches the imprint head serves as a pressing unit (0044, lines 2-4). Applicant teaches the imprint device (fig1) which includes the imprint head serves as a shaping device (0033, line 1) (0038, lines 1-2). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In regards to claim 13, the claimed subject matter “at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a pressing unit configured to perform the pressing through the resist” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes it is unclear as to how a processor or circuit functions as a pressing unit since a processor or circuit cannot physically press a material by itself. In regards to claim 13, the claimed subject matter “measurement unit configured to measure” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “measurement unit” to perform the claimed functions. Applicant teaches the measurement unit measures the height of a surface (0054, lines 1-3). Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. In regards to claim 13, the claimed subject matter “calculation unit configured to calculate” is rendered indefinite. Examiner notes the specification does not provide the structure for the “a calculation unit” to perform the claimed functions. Based upon the specification there is no way to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation, since there are no limits imposed by structure, material or acts, and can therefore be performed by any means capable of performing the function, both known and unknown. Clarification is required. Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KR 20230124482, US 20220111634, KR 20220014298, US 20210187795, & US 20180364565. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 &14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “performing the pressing through the resist having a height less than an optical distance λ/4, A being a wavelength of the light; measuring peak positions of the Newton's rings in a contact boundary portion between the mold and the substrate in a region in which a gap between the mold and the substrate is less than the optical distance λ/4; and calculating the deflection of the mold based on the peak positions”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1. As to claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the mold measured by the measurement method according to claim 1”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11. As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “at least one processor or circuit configured to function as: a pressing unit configured to perform the pressing through the resist having a height less than an optical distance λ/4, A being a wavelength of the light; a measurement unit configured to measure peak positions of the Newton's rings in a contact boundary portion between the mold and the substrate in a region in which a gap between the mold and the substrate is less than the optical distance λ/4; and a calculation unit configured to calculate the deflection of the mold based”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13. As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “performing the pressing through the resist having a height less than an optical distance λ/4, A being a wavelength of the light; measuring peak positions of the Newton's rings in a contact boundary portion between the mold and the substrate in a region in which a gap between the mold and the substrate is less than the optical distance λ/4; and calculating the deflection of the mold based on the peak positions”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST. 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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. /MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 26, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590882
THRESHOLD GATING FOR FLOW CYTOMETRY METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590889
OUTLIER DETECTION FOR SPECTROSCOPIC CLASSIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12571678
SPECTROSCOPE AND SPECTROSCOPE PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12566253
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CONTROLLING LASER EMISSION, AND RELATED APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12560533
OPTICAL SYSTEM COMPRISING ANS OPTICAL MULTIPLEXER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (-2.3%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month