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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claims such as claim 15 recite details of the substrate which is the article being worked upon by the apparatus. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Limitations related to the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed, such as the substrate having shot regions or alignment marks, do not impart patentability to the claims, see MPEP §2115.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With respect to claims 15 and 23, Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the amended claim limitations because the previously cited embodiment discloses using a positive pressure in region 64a and negative pressure in the other regions rather than the claimed negative pressure in the outermost first region and a positive pressure in the interior second region. While Examiner agrees that the previously cited embodiment was opposite to the newly added claim limitation, other embodiments in Okada describe setting the outermost region 64a to a negative pressure and further describe that the inner regions, e.g., 64b, can be set to a positive pressure thus meeting the claim. The rejections of the dependent claims have also been updated to be consistent with the amended limitations in claim 15. A new reference is cited with respect to new claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
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.
Claims 15-16 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 2020/0183270, made of record on the IDS filed 1/27/2025) modified by Hayashi (US 2015/0325526)
Regarding claim 15, Okada meets the claimed, An imprint apparatus, comprising: a suction chuck having a first suction region configured to suction an outer edge portion of a substrate (Okada [0043] describes region 64a, see Figure 3A showing it is the outermost edge portion of the substrate holding unit 61) and a second suction region configured to suction an inner region of the substrate, (Okada [0043] describes inner regions 64b and 64c, see Figure 3A) the first suction region being divided from the second suction region by a first projection configured to contact the substrate when the substrate is on the suction chuck; (Okada [0043] describes partition 63b, see Figure 3B showing the partition contacts the substrate 5) a template stage configured to hold a template, adjust a relative position of the substrate on the suction chuck and the template in a plane direction, and move up and down with respect to the substrate on the suction chuck; (Okada [0027] describes a molding holding unit 41 which moves in all of the x, y, and z directions) a first imaging sensor that images the substrate on the suction chuck through the template; (Okada [0053] describes an alignment optical system 10) and a control unit configured to control the suction chuck, the template stage, and the first imaging sensor (Okada [0056] control unit 14 controls each part of the imprint apparatus, see also [0061]) wherein the substrate has a plurality of shot regions including a partial shot region in both the outer edge portion and the inner region of the substrate, (Okada [0039] and Figure 2 show the shot regions, however the details of the substrate are not patentably distinct from the prior art) the partial shot region including a first alignment mark in the inner region and a second alignment mark in the outer edge portion, (the details of the substrate are not patentably distinct from the prior art) the template has a third alignment mark for position alignment to the first alignment mark, (Okada [0053] describes an alignment mark on the mold 3) and the control unit is configured to: cause the suction chuck to suction the outer edge portion and the inner region of the substrate, (Okada [0079] describes the pressure of each section is negative, [0061] describing the control unit controls the pressures in the holding regions) perform the position alignment of the first and third alignment marks based on images of the first and third alignment marks from the first imaging sensor through the template while the template is pressed against a resin film in the partial shot region, (Okada [0074] describes alignment is performed by the alignment optical system 10 using a mark on the substrate 5 and a mark on the mold 3 while the mold 3 and substrate 5 are in contact) and perform the position alignment by adjusting a suction force for the first suction region to a negative pressure with respect to a reference pressure (Okada [0097] describes setting the holding region 64a to a negative pressure, see Figure 6B.)
Okada does not disclose a single embodiment where region 64a is negative and region 64b is positive however, Okada [0102] describes the pressure of holding region 64b may also be adjusted depending on the warping of the substrate. Okada [0096]-[0098] discloses adjusting to positive or negative pressure depending on if the substrate is expanded or contracted which meets the claimed a suction force of the second suction region to a positive pressure with respect to the reference pressure while the template is pressed against the resin film in the partial shot region. Since Okada discloses adjusting the pressure of region 64a to be negative in [0097] and discloses the pressure of region 64b may also be adjusted to positive to mitigate warping in [0102], it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the adjustment of the first region as disclosed in [0097] with the adjusting of the second region 64b to be positive as disclosed in [0102] in order to mitigate warping of the substrate, see Okada [0102] and [0098].
Okada does not describe a second imaging sensor and does not meet the claimed, a second imaging sensor that images the substrate on the suction chuck through the template. Okada describes a second alignment step for correcting the shape difference but uses input data and does not disclose that the alignment is based on information from a fourth alignment mark or that there is a fourth alignment mark and does not meet the claimed, and a fourth alignment mark for position alignment to the second alignment mark or perform the position alignment based on images of the second and fourth alignment marks from the second imaging sensor through the template.
Analogous in the wafer alignment, Hayashi meets the claimed, a second imaging sensor that images the substrate on the suction chuck through the template (Hayashi [0028] describes multiple alignment scopes 19 which measure the substrate through the template) and a fourth alignment mark for position alignment to the second alignment mark (Hayashi [0029] and Figure 2 show the mold alignment mark AMM in multiple locations on the mold M) or perform the position alignment based on images of the second and fourth alignment marks from the second imaging sensor through the template (Hayashi [0037] describes the control unit 7 controls the alignment during pressing based on the alignment of the marks AMM and AMW.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to simply duplicate the number of alignment sensors and the number of alignment marks on Okada as described in Hayashi in order to measure multiple components indicating the difference between the mold and the wafer, see Hayashi [0035]. It also would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the shape difference correction alignment step described in Okada with the shape correction alignment step using the alignment data from the alignment marks as described in Hayashi in order to correct additional components of alignment, see Hayashi [0037].
Regarding claim 16, Okada meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks while gradually increasing the suction force for the first suction region (Okada [0098] describes controlling the magnitude of the pressure in region 64a to control the amount of expansion or contraction.)
Regarding claim 21, Okada meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the suction chuck further comprises a second projection surrounding an outer periphery of the first suction region, and a height of the second projection is less than a height of the first projection (Okada [0043] and Figure 6A show partition 63a on the outermost edge of holding region 64a and that it is shorter in height than the other partitions 63c and 63b.)
Regarding claim 22, Okada meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to keep the suction force in the second suction region constant while performing the position alignment of the first and third alignment marks (Okada [0074] discloses performing alignment in stop S108 and the pressure is not changed until S109 in [0075.)
Regarding claim 23, Okada does not explicitly disclose the magnitudes of the pressure forces and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the suction force in the first suction region to be greater than a reference force and the suction force in the second suction region to be less than the reference force while performing the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks however, Okada [0098] and [0102] describe the magnitude of the pressure can be controlled to control the amount of expansion or contraction.
Okada discloses that the magnitude of the pressure force is a result effective variable which controls the expansion or contraction of the substrate. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the force of each of the regions through routine experimentation such that the expansion or contraction is adequately controlled, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 24, Okada discloses positive and negative pressures but does not explicitly disclose if that is positive or negative with reference to atmospheric pressure and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the reference pressure is atmospheric pressure, however, Okada [0096]-[0098] discloses adjusting to positive or negative pressure depending on if the substrate is expanded or contracted and also describes the magnitude of the pressure in region 64a to control the amount of expansion or contraction. Okada discloses that the magnitude of the pressure force is a result effective variable which controls the expansion or contraction of the substrate. It would be obvious to person of skill in the art adjust the magnitude of the region pressures to a negative pressure below atmospheric pressure or a positive pressure above atmospheric pressure through routine optimization to appropriately correct the expansion or contraction, see Okada [0098].
Regarding claim 25, Okada meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the partial shot region of the substrate is suctioned to the first suction region of the suction chuck, the location of the partial region of the substrate on the chuck is a detail about the substrate rather than the apparatus itself. Okada [0039] describes a partial shot region 52 in the outer periphery and [0047] describes the outermost region 64a is also on the outer periphery.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada as modified by Hayashi as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Murakami (JP 6418773, see English translation provided.)
Regarding claim 17, Okada does not meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks by adjusting a tilt of the template, a pressing force of the template, or a bowing of the template.
Analogous in the field of alignment mechanisms, Murakami meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks by adjusting a tilt of the template, (Murakami [0016] describes a tilting function of the mold) a pressing force of the template, (Murakami [0015] describes applying a force to the mold) or a bowing of the template (Murakami [0015] and [0022] describe an alignment measurement unit 107 performs an alignment and then the mold 21 is corrected by the deformation unit 24 to correct the arcuate (bowing) component of the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Okada with the apparatus of Murakami which describes adjusting the tilt, bowing, and pressing force of the mold in order to correct the deformation of the mold and accurately match the pattern to the shot area, see Murakami [0024].
Regarding claim 18, Murakami meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks by adjusting a pressing force of the template (Murakami [0015] describes applying a force to the mold to correct deformation, see also [0022].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Okada with the apparatus of Murakami which describes adjusting pressing force of the mold in order to correct the deformation of the mold and accurately match the pattern to the shot area, see Murakami [0024].
Regarding claim 19, Murakami meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks by adjusting a bowing of the template. (Murakami [0015] and [0022] describe an alignment measurement unit 107 performs an alignment and then the mold 21 is corrected by the deformation unit 24 to correct the arcuate (bowing) component of the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Okada with the apparatus of Murakami which describes adjusting the bowing of the mold in order to correct the deformation of the mold and accurately match the pattern to the shot area, see Murakami [0024].
Regarding claim 20, Murakami meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the control unit is configured to perform the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks by adjusting a tilt of the template (Murakami [0016] describes a tilting function of the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of modified Okada with the apparatus of Murakami which describes adjusting the tilt of the mold in order to correct the deformation of the mold and accurately match the pattern to the shot area, see Murakami [0024].
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada modified by Hayashi as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Leenders (US 2017/0192359.)
Regarding claim 26, Okada describes adjusting the magnitude of the suction force or pressure force but does not explicitly describe that it is done gradually and does not meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks is performed while gradually changing a pressure in the first suction region from a first pressure to a second pressure that is more negative than the first pressure.
Leenders also describes an apparatus with a suction chuck which corrects warpage of the substrate and meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the position alignment of the second and fourth alignment marks is performed while gradually changing a pressure in the first suction region from a first pressure to a second pressure that is more negative than the first pressure (Leenders [0080] describes gradually increasing the suction of the warped substrate.) Examiner notes that gradually increasing the suction pressure is the intended use of the apparatus and is not patently distinct from an apparatus in the prior art with the same structure. Additionally, claim 26 does not specify that the control unit is configured to change the pressure.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus which applies a negative pressure during alignment of Okada with the apparatus that gradually increases the suction pressure as disclosed in Leenders in order to attempt to correct the warpage of the wafer so the wafer can be properly clamped, see Leenders [0080].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights