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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/12/2025.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 10 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. The claim is unclear because it is nongrammatical and it is not clear what words are missing. For the purposes of applying art, the claim has been treated as inclusive of meaning “wherein etching the substrate occurs after separating the template from the resist mask layer”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 20100140220 A1, hereinafter Cho).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses A pattern formation method ([0043]), comprising:
Forming a hard mask layer (515) on a first surface (see 1st annotation of Fig. 6(a)) of a first substrate (510) ([0043])
PNG
media_image1.png
166
187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotation of Cho Fig. 6(a)
exposing a second region of the first surface, with a first region of the first surface covered by the hard mask layer (see 1st annotation of Fig. 6(f) and [0045] which discloses etching for removal)
PNG
media_image2.png
263
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
1st annotation of Cho Fig. 6(h)
forming a resist mask layer (520) on the hard mask layer (515) in the first region and on the substrate in the second region (see Fig. 6(g));
molding the resist mask layer (520) by pressing a template (M4) against the resist mask layer (520), the template having a recessed pattern such that the recessed pattern faces the second region while pressing the template against the resist mask (The leftmost portion of template M4 is recessed and overlaps the rightmost exposed second region.) (see Fig. 6(h));
curing the resist mask layer (520) ([0047-0048] teaches an imprint process wherein [0051] and [0034] teach said imprint processes comprise curing); and
forming a first recessed portion (see 1st annotation of Fig 6(l)) recessed below the first surface and a first protruding portion (see 1st annotation of Fig 6(l)) protruding beyond a bottom face of the first recessed portion (see [0050] which teaches the substrate 510 was etched and thus the first recessed portion was made below the first surface).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
1st annotation of Fig 6(l)
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses the pattern formation method according to claim 1, wherein the step of exposing a second region (1st annotation of Fig. 6(f)) of the first surface (1st annotation of Fig. 6(a)) further comprises partially etching the hard mask layer (515) (see 1st annotation of Fig. 6(f) and [0045] which teaches etching was used to expose the second region).
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses the pattern formation method according to claim 1, wherein the step of forming a first recessed portion (1st annotation of Fig 6(l)) recessed below the first surface and a first protruding portion (1st annotation of Fig 6(l)) protruding beyond a bottom face of the first recessed portion further comprises partially etching the second region using the hard mask layer and the resist mask layer (see [0050] which teaches the substrate 510 was etched and thus the first recessed portion was made below the first surface. 1st annotation of Fig 6(l) depicts the first protruding portion beyond the bottom face of the first recessed portion. See first annotations of Fig. 6 (f) and (l) which teach that the etching was done in the second region to form the first protruding portion and first recessed portion).
Claim 8: The template includes several flat surfaces that face the first region while pressing the template against the mask. Each protrusion and recession of the template includes a flat surface. See Fig. 6h.
Claim 10: The etching occurs after separating the template from the resist mask layer. See Figs. 6h, 6i, 6l, and [0050].
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20100140220 A1) in view of Kondo (US 20210302840 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, such as the first recessed portion and the first protruding portion form a pattern (see 1st annotation of Fig 6(l)).
Cho does not disclose the replica template configured for nanoimprint lithography.
In the same field of endeavor (imprint lithography, see Cho [0043]), Kondo teaches pattern forming methods can be used to manufacture templates comprising a pattern surface 24, see [0039-0042].
A person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter POSITA) would have found it obvious to use the method of Cho to manufacture templates as taught by Kondo as it is known pattern forming methods can be used to form templates, see MPEP 2143 I D. which give guidance on applying known techniques to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, when making such a template, the substrate may be made of quartz and the hard mask of chrome [0014]. It would have been obvious to have used these materials because Kondo teaches them as suitable for the purpose.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20100140220 A1) in view of Pauliac (US 20140004313 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses all of the limitation of claim 1, such forming the the first recessed portion and the first protruding portion by etching ([0050] which teaches the substrate 510 was etched and thus the first recessed portion were formed by etching the second region using the hard mask 515 and imprinting resin 520 as depicted in 1st annotation of Fig 6 (f) and (l)).
Cho does not disclose forming the first recessed portion and a multiple of the first protruding portions having differing heights.
In the same field of endeavor (imprint lithography, see Cho [0043]), Pauliac teaches imprint patterns to have varying heights, see [0036].
A POSITA would have found it obvious for the first protruding portion (see 1st annotation of Fig 6(l)) to have different heights as it is a known method of imprint lithography, see MPEP 2143 I D. which give guidance on applying known techniques to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20100140220 A1) in view of Lin (US 20110304053 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses all of the limitation of claim 1. It does not teach that the resist mask layer directly contacts the first surface.
Cho teaches that the method is used for forming circuits in semiconductors [0006].
Lin teaches that in forming semiconductor circuits [0003] when a second mask (850, analogous to resist mask (520) of Cho) is deposited onto a first mask (400, analogous to hard mask (515) of Cho), that the second mask may contact the underlying substrate (100+200+300, analogous to substrate 510 of Cho) on which the first mask is deposited. See Fig. 7F and [0215]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing to have had the resist mask (520) of Cho contact its Substrate (510) with a reasonable expectation of success because Lin indicates that the masking process still works even when the second mask contacts the substrate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20100140220 A1) in view of Koh (US 2012/0115331) and Douglas (US 4,690,729).
Regarding claim 11, Cho discloses all of the limitation of claim 1. It does not teach that the hard mask layer is smaller than a depth of the recessed portion.
Cho teaches that the method is used for forming circuits in semiconductors [0006]. Cho does not teach the thickness of the hard mask or the depth of the recessed portions. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have looked to the prior art for operative ranges of these values. Koh teaches that thickness of hard masks in forming patterns in semiconductor devices (Title) are about 50-400 nm [0036]. Douglas teaches that depths of trenches in semiconductor traces can be greater than one micron (col. 1, lines 15-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a mask thickness of 50-400 nm as the particular thickness of the hard mask of Cho as an operative thickness for patterning masks for semiconductors and a trench depth of greater than 1 micron as suitable feature depths for semiconductors. The resulting thickness is smaller than the resulting depth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the rejection because element M4 does not have a recessed portion that faces the second region of element 510. The argument is unconvincing because the leftmost portion of template M4 is recessed and overlaps the rightmost exposed second region. (See Fig. 6(h).)
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 MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
MICHAEL B. CLEVELAND
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712