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
In view of the amendment filed 07/30/2026:
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 are pending.
Claims 3 and 11 are canceled.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokue et al. (US20160056036), and further in view of Peter et al. (US20110266563) and
Kobayashi et al. (US20120007276).
Regarding claim 1, Tokue teaches a template (template 20 supported by stage base 9;
Figure 1) configured to transfer a pattern to a resin applied to a substrate ([0022] The stage
base 9 supports the template 20 via the master stage 2 and presses the template pattern of the
template 20 into the resist 13A on the wafer Wa. The stage base 9 moves in vertical directions,
thereby pressing the template 20 into the resist 13A and separating (mold-removing) the
template 20 from the resist 13A), the template comprising:
a base material (stage base 9; Figure 1); and
a mesa portion (template 20 in Figure 3) protruding from a surface of the base material
([0022] The stage base 9 supports the template 20 via the master stage 2 in Figure 1), wherein
the mesa portion includes a plurality of protruding portions protruding from a reference plane
of the mesa portion (protrusion pattern features 31 and first members 35 in Figure 4A; see
annotated Figure 4A on pg. 6 of the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026), the plurality of protruding portions include at least a first protruding portion (protrusion pattern features 31; Figure 4A) and a second protruding portion (first members 35; Figure 4A), in which a protrusion amount of the second protruding portion with respect to the reference plane is smaller than a protrusion amount of the first protruding portion with respect to the reference plane (see annotated Figure 4A on pg. 6 of the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026).
While Tokue teaches varying the surface roughness of the protruding portions and
consequently the contact-angle (Abstract: “The high contact-angle portion is placed in at least
either top surface of the protrusion pattern feature or bottom surface of the recess pattern
feature from among surfaces of the template pattern” and [0056] high contact-angle portions
30 may be formed by making the top surface 21 and the bottom surface 22 anisotropic rough
surfaces) to optimize the surface wettability which affects the resist filling time ([0043] and
[0061]), Tokue fails to teach a surface area of a top surface of the second protruding portion is
larger than a surface area of a top surface of the first protruding portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Peter teaches a template
with regions 1a having a manufactured surface roughness versus other regions of protrusions
without a manufactured surface roughness (see top of Figure 1 and [0038] which comprises
structural regions 1a conceived to modify wetting properties of corresponding areas 2b of a
two-dimensional surface formed on the substrate 2 (see step C), whereas areas 2a may be not
affected) to induce regions with varying hydrophilicity ([0038] It will be appreciated that the
regions 2b may be hydrophobic or hydrophilic in an absolute sense, or they may be
hydrophobic or hydrophilic in a relative sense, for example with respect to an original state of
the surface).
Further, Peter teaches wherein, on the top surface of the second protruding portion, an
uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion (see
region 1a in Figure 1A with higher surface roughness than top surface of larger protruding
portions and [0040]).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Kobayashi teaches surface
roughening increases the surface area, increases the contact area of a pattern transfer portion, and improves adhesive strength ([0049] Surface roughening increases the surface area. The
increase of the contact area of the pattern transfer portion 20 improves the adhesive strength).
Further, Tokue teaches high-contact angle portions induced by surface roughness makes
the resist less likely to wet the template such that the resist moves faster, resulting in a shorter
filling time (see [0061] of Tokue “Further, when the high contact-angle portion 30B existed, fill-
ability was improved over when the high contact-angle portion 30B did not exist. This was
because the contact angle to the high contact-angle portion 30 is high, so that the resist 13A is
less likely to wet the template 20B. As such, when the resist 13A is less likely to wet the
template 20B, the resist 13A moves faster, resulting in a shorter filling time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second protruding portion of
Tokue have a manufactured surface roughness such that the increased surface roughness results in an increased surface area relative to the first protruding portion, wherein on the top surface of the second protruding portion an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion, as taught by Peter and Kobayashi, for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties, which improves adhesive strength and allows for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time.
Regarding claim 2, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1.
Further, Peter teaches wherein surface roughness of the top surface of the second
protruding portion is greater than surface roughness of the top surface of the first protruding
portion (see region 1a in Figure 1A with higher surface roughness than top surface of larger
protruding portions and [0040]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second protruding portion of Tokue have a
manufactured surface roughness such that the increased surface roughness results in an
increased surface area relative to the first protruding portion, as taught by Peter and
Kobayashi, for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties, which improves adhesive
strength and allows for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time.
Regarding claim 7, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1.
Further, Tokue teaches wherein the plurality of protruding portions include a plurality of
protruding pieces that have the same protrusion amount with respect to the reference plane
and are arranged with a predetermined gap from each other (see first members 35 and
multiple protrusion pattern features 31 in Figure 4A).
Regarding claim 8, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1.
Further, Tokue teaches protruding portions have a wettability such that a contact angle
with respect to an organic material is equal to or less than 90 degrees (see Figure 9). A contact
angle of 30 degrees, for example, can lead to good mold-removing-ability ([0066] it is seen that, where the contact angle of the third member 37 is 30°, if S.sub.3<0.804, good mold-removing-
ability can be obtained).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the top surface of the second protruding portion
of Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi with a wettability such that a contact angle with
respect to an organic material is equal to or less than 90 degrees, as taught by Tokue, for the
benefit of having good mold-removing-ability.
Regarding claim 9, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1.
Further, Tokue teaches protruding portions have a wettability such that a contact angle
with respect to an organic material is less than 65 degrees )see Figure 9). A contact angle of 30
degrees, for example, can lead to good mold-removing-ability ([0066] it is seen that, where the
contact angle of the third member 37 is 30°, if S.sub.3<0.804, good mold-removing-ability can
be obtained).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the top surface of the second protruding portion
of Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi with a wettability such that a contact angle with
respect to an organic material is less than 65 degrees, as taught by Tokue, for the benefit of
having good mold-removing-ability.
Regarding claim 10, Tokue teaches a method for manufacturing a template capable of
transferring a pattern to a resin applied to a substrate ([0002] Embodiments described herein
relate generally to a template, a template forming method, and a semiconductor device manufacturing method and ([0022] The stage base 9 supports the template 20 via the master
stage 2 and presses the template pattern of the template 20 into the resist 13A on the wafer
Wa. The stage base 9 moves in vertical directions, thereby pressing the template 20 into the
resist 13A and separating (mold-removing) the template 20 from the resist 13A), the method
comprising:
processing a surface of a base material (stage base 9; Figure 1) to form a mesa portion
(template 20 in Figure 3) protruding from the base material ([0022] The stage base 9 supports
the template 20 via the master stage 2 in Figure 1);
forming a plurality of protruding portions (protrusion pattern features 31 and first
members 35 in Figure 4A; see annotated Figure 4A in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026) including a first protruding portion (protrusion pattern features 31; Figure 4A) and a second protruding portion (first members 35; Figure 4A), in which a protrusion amount of the second protruding portion with respect to the reference plane is smaller than a protrusion amount of the first protruding portion with respect to the reference plane (see annotated Figure 4A in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026).
While Tokue teaches varying the surface roughness of the protruding portions and
consequently the contact-angle (Abstract: “The high contact-angle portion is placed in at least
either top surface of the protrusion pattern feature or bottom surface of the recess pattern
feature from among surfaces of the template pattern” and [0056] high contact-angle portions
30 may be formed by making the top surface 21 and the bottom surface 22 anisotropic rough
surfaces) to optimize the surface wettability which affects the resist filling time ([0043] and [0061]), Tokue fails to teach a surface area of a top surface of the second protruding portion is
larger than a surface area of a top surface of the first protruding portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Peter teaches a template
with regions 1a having a manufactured surface roughness versus other regions of protrusions
without a manufactured surface roughness (see top of Figure 1 and [0038] which comprises
structural regions 1a conceived to modify wetting properties of corresponding areas 2b of a
two-dimensional surface formed on the substrate 2 (see step C), whereas areas 2a may be not
affected) to induce regions with varying hydrophilicity ([0038] It will be appreciated that the
regions 2b may be hydrophobic or hydrophilic in an absolute sense, or they may be
hydrophobic or hydrophilic in a relative sense, for example with respect to an original state of
the surface).
Further, Peter teaches wherein, on the top surface of the second protruding portion, an
uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion (see
region 1a in Figure 1A with higher surface roughness than top surface of larger protruding
portions and [0040]).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Kobayashi teaches surface
roughening increases the surface area, increases the contact area of a pattern transfer portion,
and improves adhesive strength ([0049] Surface roughening increases the surface area. The
increase of the contact area of the pattern transfer portion 20 improves the adhesive strength).
Further, Tokue teaches high-contact angle portions induced by surface roughness makes
the resist less likely to wet the template such that the resist moves faster, resulting in a shorter
filling time (see [0061] of Tokue “Further, when the high contact-angle portion 30B existed, fill-
ability was improved over when the high contact-angle portion 30B did not exist. This was
because the contact angle to the high contact-angle portion 30 is high, so that the resist 13A is
less likely to wet the template 20B. As such, when the resist 13A is less likely to wet the
template 20B, the resist 13A moves faster, resulting in a shorter filling time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second protruding portion of
Tokue have a manufactured surface roughness such that the increased surface roughness results in an increased surface area relative to the first protruding portion, wherein on the top surface of the second protruding portion an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion, as taught by Peter and Kobayashi, for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties, which improves adhesive strength and allows for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time.
Regarding claim 12, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the method for
manufacturing a template according to claim 10.
Further, Peter teaches wherein the step of treating a top surface of the second
protruding portion further comprises: roughening the top surface of the second protruding
portion (see region 1a in Figure 1A with higher surface roughness than top surface of larger
protruding portions and [0040]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second protruding portion of Tokue have a
manufactured surface roughness such that the increased surface roughness results in an
increased surface area relative to the first protruding portion, as taught by Peter and
Kobayashi, for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties, which improves adhesive
strength and allows for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time.
Regarding claim 13, Tokue teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device
([0002] Embodiments described herein relate generally to a template, a template forming
method, and a semiconductor device manufacturing method) comprising:
transferring a pattern to a resin applied on a substrate by using a template ([0022] The
stage base 9 supports the template 20 via the master stage 2 and presses the template pattern
of the template 20 into the resist 13A on the wafer Wa. The stage base 9 moves in vertical
directions, thereby pressing the template 20 into the resist 13A and separating (mold-
removing) the template 20 from the resist 13A), wherein the template comprises:
a base material (stage base 9; Figure 1); and
a mesa portion (template 20 in Figure 3) protruding from a surface of the base material
([0022] The stage base 9 supports the template 20 via the master stage 2 in Figure 1),
wherein the mesa portion includes a plurality of protruding portions protruding from a
reference plane of the mesa portion (protrusion pattern features 31 and first members 35 in
Figure 4A; see annotated Figure 4A in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026), the plurality of protruding portions include at least a first protruding portion (protrusion pattern features 31; Figure 4A) and a second protruding portion (first members 35; Figure 4A), in which a protrusion amount of the second protruding portion with respect to the reference plane is smaller than a protrusion amount of the first protruding portion with respect to the reference plane see annotated Figure 4A in the rejection of claim 1 in the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026);
forming a patterned resist (see Figure 2D and [0016] [0016] FIG. 1 is a diagram showing
the configuration of an imprint apparatus. The imprint apparatus 1 is an apparatus which
transfers the template pattern of a template 20, a mold substrate, onto a substrate subject to
transfer such as a wafer Wa. The imprint apparatus 1 forms a pattern on the wafer Wa using an
imprint method such as nano-imprint photolithography. The template 20 is a master mold, and
the template pattern is a circuit pattern or the like to be transferred onto the wafer Wa); and
processing the substrate based on the patterned resist ([0067]).
While Tokue teaches varying the surface roughness of the protruding portions and
consequently the contact-angle (Abstract: “The high contact-angle portion is placed in at least
either top surface of the protrusion pattern feature or bottom surface of the recess pattern
feature from among surfaces of the template pattern” and [0056] high contact-angle portions
30 may be formed by making the top surface 21 and the bottom surface 22 anisotropic rough
surfaces) to optimize the surface wettability which affects the resist filling time ([0043] and [0061]), Tokue fails to teach a surface area of a top surface of the second protruding portion is
larger than a surface area of a top surface of the first protruding portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Peter teaches a template
with regions 1a having a manufactured surface roughness versus other regions of protrusions
without a manufactured surface roughness (see top of Figure 1 and [0038] which comprises
structural regions 1a conceived to modify wetting properties of corresponding areas 2b of a
two-dimensional surface formed on the substrate 2 (see step C), whereas areas 2a may be not
affected) to induce regions with varying hydrophilicity ([0038] It will be appreciated that the
regions 2b may be hydrophobic or hydrophilic in an absolute sense, or they may be
hydrophobic or hydrophilic in a relative sense, for example with respect to an original state of
the surface).
Further, Peter teaches wherein, on the top surface of the second protruding portion, an
uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion (see
region 1a in Figure 1A with higher surface roughness than top surface of larger protruding
portions and [0040]).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprinting molds, Kobayashi teaches surface
roughening increases the surface area, increases the contact area of a pattern transfer portion,
and improves adhesive strength ([0049] Surface roughening increases the surface area. The
increase of the contact area of the pattern transfer portion 20 improves the adhesive strength).
Further, Tokue teaches high-contact angle portions induced by surface roughness makes
the resist less likely to wet the template such that the resist moves faster, resulting in a shorter
filling time (see [0061] of Tokue “Further, when the high contact-angle portion 30B existed, fill-
ability was improved over when the high contact-angle portion 30B did not exist. This was
because the contact angle to the high contact-angle portion 30 is high, so that the resist 13A is
less likely to wet the template 20B. As such, when the resist 13A is less likely to wet the
template 20B, the resist 13A moves faster, resulting in a shorter filling time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the second protruding portion of
Tokue have a manufactured surface roughness such that the increased surface roughness results in an increased surface area relative to the first protruding portion, wherein on the top surface of the second protruding portion an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion, as taught by Peter and Kobayashi, for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties, which improves adhesive strength and allows for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokue et
al. (US20160056036), Peter et al. (US20110266563) and Kobayashi et al. (US20120007276), and
further in view of Spath (US20050003146).
Regarding claim 4, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1. However, Tokue fails to teach wherein a height of a projection provided in
the uneven structure formed on the top surface of the second protruding portion is shorter
than a protrusion amount of the second protruding portion from the reference plane of the
mesa portion.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming a mold for embossing a structure
([0091]-[0092]), Spath teaches a height of a projection provided in an uneven structure formed
on a top surface of a second protruding portion is shorter than a protrusion amount of the
second protruding portion ([0457] FIG. 5a shows a section of a perspective top view on a
lengthwise directed rib structure which is equipped both in the area of the protrusions and also
in the groove valleys with a variant of the self-cleaning, soil-resisting burl structure; see Figure
5A). The rib-shaped surface structures formed on a top surface portion of the plurality of projections positively affects the flow of medium circulating around the protrusions and
prevents flow separation behavior ([0045]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have a height of a projection provided in the uneven
structure formed on the top surface of the second protruding portion of Tokue modified with
Peter and Kobayashi be shorter than a protrusion amount of the second protruding portion
from the reference plane of the mesa portion, as taught by Spath, for the benefit of positively
affecting the flow of medium circulating around the protrusions and preventing flow separation
behavior.
Regarding claim 5, Tokue modified with Peter and Kobayashi teaches the template
according to claim 1. However, Tokue fails to teach wherein a width of a gap formed between a
plurality of projections provided in the uneven structure formed on the top surface of the
second protruding portion is narrower than a width of a gap formed between the plurality of
second protruding portions.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to forming a mold for embossing a structure
([0091]-[0092]), Spath teaches a width of a gap formed between a plurality of projections
provided in an uneven structure formed on a top surface of a portion is narrower than a width
of a gap formed between the plurality of second protruding portions ([0457] FIG. 5a shows a
section of a perspective top view on a lengthwise directed rib structure which is equipped both
in the area of the protrusions and also in the groove valleys with a variant of the self-cleaning,
soil-resisting burl structure; see Figure 5A). The rib-shaped surface structures formed on a top surface portion of the plurality of projections positively affects the flow of medium circulating
around the protrusions and prevents flow separation behavior ([0045]-[0048]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have a width of a gap formed between the plurality of
projections provided in the uneven structure formed on the top surface of the portion of Tokue
modified with Peter and Kobayashi be narrower than a width of a gap formed between the
plurality of second protruding portions, as taught by Spath, for the benefit of positively
affecting the flow of medium circulating around the protrusions and preventing flow separation
behavior.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and
any intervening claims.
An examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance was provided in the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant notes that neither Tokue, Peter, or Kobayashi fail to teach the limitation “wherein, on the top surface of the second protruding portion, an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion, or an uneven structure that is larger than an uneven structure formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion is formed” (see pg. 7 of Remarks). However, Examiner establishes on pg. 7 of the Office Action mailed 04/30/2026 that Peter teaches said limitation and provides rational for why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have the second protruding portion of Tokue have an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion (for the benefit of locally altering wettability properties which improve adhesive strength and allow for the resist to fill the template in a shorter time).
Further, Applicant notes that forming an uneven structure on the second protruding portion with a smaller protrusion amount allows a resist material to more easily permeate beyond the second protruding portion, and that neither Tokue, Peter, or Kobayashi seem to address or mention this benefit (see pg. 7 of Remarks). However, claim 1 as currently claimed does not require an uneven structure on the second protruding portion with a smaller protrusion. Rather, the claim requires “on the top surface of the second protruding portion, an uneven structure that is not formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion, or an uneven structure that is larger than an uneven structure formed on the top surface of the first protruding portion is formed”.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights