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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are pending, claim 4 having been cancelled and claims 13 and 15 having been withdrawn. Applicant's response filed May 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14 will be examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0222700 to Ota in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0070437 to Ota (“the ‘437 application”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,993,464 to LeClaire et al.
As to claims 1, 6 and 7, Ota discloses a cleaning apparatus configured to clean an imprint template (read as an original plate used when forming a composition on a substrate), the cleaning apparatus comprising: an irradiating unit configured to release plasma onto a first side of the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#15, 16, 17; paragraph [0023]); and a heating unit configured to radiate heat onto a second side of the original plate and heat the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#13; paragraph [0022]), wherein the heating unit and the irradiating unit are disposed such that the original plate is interposed between the heating unit and the irradiating unit (see Ota Fig. 1 disclosing the template 14 being interposed between the irradiating unit 15/16 and the heater 13).
While Ota discloses that the original plate includes a cavity formed on the second side of the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#14) and a stage to hold the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#12), Ota does not explicitly disclose that the original plate stage holds the original plate at a region of the original plate outside of the cavity such that the cavity remains unobstructed by the original plate stage, a distal end of the heating unit is disposed within the cavity when radiating the heat onto the second side of the original plate and a first drive unit configured to position the original plate and the heating unit at an arbitrary distance from each other. The ‘437 application discloses a similar mold cleaning apparatus wherein the original plate stage is configured to hold the peripheral portion of the original plate (read as the original plate stage holds the original plate at a region of the original plate outside of the cavity such that the cavity remains unobstructed by the original plate stage) (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1, ref.#10; paragraph [0024]). The ‘437 application further discloses the energy unit supplying energy to the second side of the template is movable with a drive unit (read as first drive unit) to an arbitrary distance and also controlled such that a distance between a surface of a side of the energy supply unit and the base of the plate become an arbitrary distance and that the sides of the substrate can be held in order to allow the distal end of the energy unit to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from each other including being disposed within the cavity (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1 disclosing energy supply unit 30 and energy control unit 35 that moves the energy supply unit to a predetermined distance including within the cavity; paragraphs [0032], [0036]; see also Fig. 1 where the peripheral of the plate can be held in order to allow the energy unit 30 to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from the plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ota to include having the stage hold the peripheral edge of the original plate, a first drive to drive the heating unit in relation to the plate and a control unit to control the first drive unit such that a surface of a side of the heating unit that releases the heat and the base of the plate become spaced apart by a predetermined interval including within the cavity as disclosed by the ‘437 application in order to optimize the amount of energy provided and prevent breaks or defects in the pattern (see the ‘437 application paragraph [0043]). Finally, it is also noted that use of lasers as thermal sources is also known in the art (see, e.g., LeClaire Abstract), and it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a laser source as a thermal source as disclosed by LeClaire and the results would have been obvious (heating a substrate).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5, the recitations directed to the original plate and the relative dimensions to the original plate are recitations drawn to processing materials or articles worked upon, which do not provide structural relevancy to the claimed apparatus invention. The courts have ruled the following: claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Since the apparatus disclose by Oka is fully capable of being used on an original plate with a pattern unit for forming a composition on a substrate, and the pattern unit forms a composition on the first side of the original plate as well as being used on an original plate where the heating unit is equal to or greater than the area of the pattern unit of the original plate, or a plate that has a cavity unit, and the cavity unit is formed on the second side of the original plate wherein the outer circumference of the heating unit can be smaller than the inner circumference of the cavity unit, Oka is considered as disclosing all of the claimed structural limitations.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0222700 to Ota in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0070437 to Ota (“the ‘437 application”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,993,464 to LeClaire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2020/0026204 to Ishida.
Ota, the ‘437 application and LeClaire are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 8 and 9, the combination of Ota, the ‘437 application and LeClaire does not explicitly disclose a second drive unit that moves the irradiating unit in relation to the original plate or a third drive unit that moves the original plate in relation to the irradiating unit. Ishida discloses a similar mold cleaning apparatus wherein the plasma unit is movable relative to the plate using a drive and the plate is movable relative to the plasma unit using another drive (see Ishida paragraph [0022]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ota/the ‘437 application/LeClaire to have a movable plasma supply unit as well as a movable holder as disclosed by Ishida in order to optimize cleaning by generating cleaning conditions for different regions of the plate and cleaning on the basis of the cleaning conditions (see Ishida paragraph [0008]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0222700 to Ota in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0070437 to Ota (“the ‘437 application”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,993,464 to LeClaire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0085555 to Schmid et al. and KR20170063080A to Park (see machine translation).
Ota, the ‘437 application and LeClaire are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, Ota does not explicitly disclose that the heating unit heats the original plate using far infrared light. Schmid discloses a similar mold cleaning apparatus wherein various types of energy is used on the back surface of the plate, including thermal, ultraviolet, visible light, and/or other types of energy (see Schmid paragraph [0031]) and Park discloses that a wide range of light can be used in mold cleaning, including IR, visible light and UV light (see Park paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use far infrared light as the energy source as disclosed by Schmid and Park and the results would have been predictable (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) where simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0222700 to Ota in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0070437 to Ota (“the ‘437 application”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,993,464 to LeClaire et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,722,925 to Dietze et al.
Ota, the ‘437 application and LeClaire are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, while the combination of Ota, the ‘437 application and LeClaire discloses a gas intake pipe and an exhaust pipe (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#16 and 18, paragraphs [0023]-[0024]), Ota does not explicitly disclose a purge gas supply. Dietze discloses that it is known in the art of plasma cleaning to supply a purge gas (see Dietze col. 9, lines 18-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a purge gas supply as disclosed by Dietze in order to avoid unwanted surface reactions (see Dietze col. 9, lines 18-48).
As to claim 12, the combination of Ota, the ‘437 application, LeClaire and Dietze discloses a heating mechanism configured to heat at least one of a first gas for generating the plasma (see Ota paragraph [0023] disclosing a microwave generator to activate the plasma) and the heater 13 disclosed by Ota is fully capable of heating first gas for generating a plasma as well as the purge gas.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0222700 to Ota in view of in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0016353 to Yamamoto et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0070437 to Ota (“the ‘437 application”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,993,464 to LeClaire et al.
As to claim 14, Ota discloses a cleaning apparatus configured to clean an imprint template (read as an original plate used when forming a composition on top of a substrate), the cleaning apparatus comprising: an irradiating unit configured to release plasma onto a first side of the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#15, 16, 17; paragraph [0023]); and a heating unit configured to radiate heat onto a second side of the original plate and heat the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#13 and 12; paragraph [0022] and [0032]), wherein the heating unit and the irradiating unit are disposed such that the original plate is interposed between the heating unit and the irradiating unit (see Ota Fig. 1 disclosing the template 14 being interposed between the irradiating unit 15/16 and the heater 13 and stage 12). Ota further discloses that the original plate can include a cavity formed on the second side of the original plate, and a distal end of the heating unit is configured to be disposed within the cavity when radiating the heat onto the second side of the original plate (see Ota Figs. 1 and 2 disclosing at plate 14 can have a cavity 14a and the heating unit 12 and 13 with a distal end 12a that is configured to be disposed within the cavity; see paragraphs [0022] and [0032] where both the heater and stage are heated by the heater).
Ota discloses a transport mechanism that moves the template onto the cleaning stage 12 (read as a transport unit configured to transport the original plate from the cleaning unit, after the original plate has been cleaned by the cleaning apparatus to the imprint apparatus (see Ota paragraph [0030]). While Ota does not explicitly disclose the details of the imprint apparatus from which the template is moved from, Yamamoto discloses that it is known in the art for an imprint apparatus to comprise: an original holding unit configured to hold the original plate while moving the original plate; a substrate stage configured to hold the substrate and move the substrate (see Yamamoto paragraphs [0035]-[0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the imprint apparatus in Ota would include an original holding unit configured to hold the original plate while moving the original plate; a substrate stage configured to hold the substrate and move the substrate as is known in the art as disclosed by, e.g., Yamamoto.
While Ota discloses that the original plate includes a cavity formed on the second side of the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#14) and a stage to hold the original plate (see Ota Fig. 1, ref.#12), Ota does not explicitly disclose that the original plate stage holds the original plate at a region of the original plate outside of the cavity such that the cavity remains unobstructed by the original plate stage, a distal end of the heating unit is disposed within the cavity when radiating the heat onto the second side of the original plate and a first drive unit configured to position the original plate and the heating unit at an arbitrary distance from each other. The ‘437 application discloses a similar mold cleaning apparatus wherein the original plate stage is configured to hold the peripheral portion of the original plate (read as the original plate stage holds the original plate at a region of the original plate outside of the cavity such that the cavity remains unobstructed by the original plate stage) (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1, ref.#10; paragraph [0024]). The ‘437 application further discloses the energy unit supplying energy to the second side of the template is movable with a drive unit (read as first drive unit) to an arbitrary distance and also controlled such that a distance between a surface of a side of the energy supply unit and the base of the plate become an arbitrary distance and that the sides of the substrate can be held in order to allow the distal end of the energy unit to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from each other including being disposed within the cavity (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1 disclosing energy supply unit 30 and energy control unit 35 that moves the energy supply unit to a predetermined distance including within the cavity; paragraphs [0032], [0036]; see also Fig. 1 where the peripheral of the plate can be held in order to allow the energy unit 30 to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from the plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ota to include having the stage hold the peripheral edge of the original plate, a first drive to drive the heating unit in relation to the plate and a control unit to control the first drive unit such that a surface of a side of the heating unit that releases the heat and the base of the plate become spaced apart by a predetermined interval including within the cavity as disclosed by the ‘437 application in order to optimize the amount of energy provided and prevent breaks or defects in the pattern (see the ‘437 application paragraph [0043]). Finally, it is also noted that use of lasers as thermal sources is also known in the art (see, e.g., LeClaire Abstract), and it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a laser source as a thermal source as disclosed by LeClaire and the results would have been obvious (heating a substrate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As discussed in the rejections above, the cited prior art, particularly the ‘437 application, discloses the newly added claim limitations that the original plate stage holds the original plate at a region of the original plate outside the cavity such that the cavity remains unobstructed by the original plate stage (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1, ref.#10; paragraph [0024]). The ‘437 application further discloses the energy unit supplying energy to the second side of the template is movable with a drive unit (read as first drive unit) to an arbitrary distance and also controlled such that a distance between a surface of a side of the energy supply unit and the base of the plate become an arbitrary distance and that the sides of the substrate can be held in order to allow the distal end of the energy unit to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from each other including being disposed within the cavity (see the ‘437 application Fig. 1 disclosing energy supply unit 30 and energy control unit 35 that moves the energy supply unit to a predetermined distance including within the cavity; paragraphs [0032], [0036]; see also Fig. 1 where the peripheral of the plate can be held in order to allow the energy unit 30 to be positioned at an arbitrary distance from the plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ota to include having the stage hold the peripheral edge of the original plate, a first drive to drive the heating unit in relation to the plate and a control unit to control the first drive unit such that a surface of a side of the heating unit that releases the heat and the base of the plate become spaced apart by a predetermined interval including within the cavity as disclosed by the ‘437 application in order to optimize the amount of energy provided and prevent breaks or defects in the pattern (see the ‘437 application paragraph [0043]). Finally, it is also noted that use of lasers as thermal sources is also known in the art (see, e.g., LeClaire Abstract), and it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a laser source as a thermal source as disclosed by LeClaire and the results would have been obvious (heating a substrate).
Applicant’s argument that the cited prior art does not suggest modifying Ota by holding the plate by the periphery and having the heating unit be movable into the cavity is not persuasive. The ‘437 application discloses a movable energy source to be inserted into the cavity and provides the motivation for doing so – to reliably remove foreign matter with a small amount of energy and to prevent breaks or defects in the pattern (see the ‘437 application paragraph [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ota in order to optimize the amount of energy used to remove the foreign matter as disclosed by the ‘437 application and prevent breaks or defects in the pattern.
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 DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights