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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 05/20/2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Park et al. (“Thermally assisted nanotransfer printing with sub–20-nm resolution and 8-inch
wafer scalability”, Sci. Adv. 2020; 6: eabb6462), and further in view of Nitto (“Thermal Release Sheet for Electronic Component Processing
REVALPHA”, https://www.nitto.com/us/en/products/e_parts/electronic001/- see attached).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of printing a nanostructure comprising:
preparing a template substrate on which a pattern is formed (“First, we prepared an 8-
inch Si wafer consisting of approximately 50 chips with three line/space structures with
different widths of 250 nm/250 nm, 500 nm/500 nm, and 1 µm/1 µm, fabricated by a
conventional photolithography process, as shown in Fig. 1 (B and C) and fig. S2.”- see pg. 2);
forming a replica pattern having an inverse phase of the pattern by coating a polymer
thin film on an upper portion of the template substrate, adhering a thermal release tape to an
upper portion of the polymer thin film, and separating the polymer thin film from the template
substrate 9” After spin-coating poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) dissolved in a mixture of
toluene and acetone onto the hydrophobic surface of the Si mold, the spin-coated PMMA thin
film was attached with an adhesive PI film, and the two films were subsequently detached
together”- see pg. 3 and replica pattern in Figure 1a);
forming a nanostructure by depositing a functional material on the replica pattern (“the
functional materials are initially formed on the surface of the replicated polymer pattern by
physical vapor deposition (PVD)”- see pg. 2); and
printing the nanostructure deposited on the replica pattern to a substrate by positioning
the nanostructure on the substrate, applying heat and pressure to the nanostructure (“To
transfer the functional nanostructures on the PMMA replica pattern on a large area, both
uniform pressure and heat conduction over the entire patterning area are required during the
contact printing process, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 2A”- see pg. 3 and Figure 1A), and
weakening an adhesive force between the thermal release tape and the replica pattern by the heat (“a heat-injection process is also needed to move the functional nanostructures with the
replica pattern onto the target substrate by weakening the adhesion between the adhesive PI
film and the replica thin film”- see pg. 3 and Figure 2B), and
wherein the thermal release adhesive layer is configured to lose the adhesive force when a temperature exceeds a predetermined temperature range, such that the heat applied during the printing weakens the adhesive force of the thermal release adhesive layer to separate the thermal release tape from the replica pattern (“the functional nanostructures
on a polymeric replica pattern can be transfer-printed onto the desired substrates after weakening the adhesion between the adhesive film and the replica pattern through a uniform heat-injection process” and “Appropriately applied heat weakens the adhesion between the adhesive film and the polymeric replica pattern, allowing the functional nanostructures on the polymer replica pattern to be transfer-printed on the substrates”- see pg. 2).
Park teaches the thermal release tape is a polyimide film and further emphasizes that high quality-patterns are obtainable on most 8-inch wafer materials, but thermal endurance is limited to short printing times of 25 seconds when uniform pressure and heat is provided at 150 °C (“Here, it should be emphasized that high-quality patterns on most 8-inch wafer materials with thermal endurance can be obtained for a short printing time of 25 s when reliably providing both uniform pressure and heat transfer at 150°C”- see pg. 4). However, Park fails to teach wherein the thermal release tape comprises a thermal release adhesive layer disposed between two films.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to electronic component manufacturing processes with temporary fixing of thermal release tapes, Nitto teaches a thermal release tape comprises a thermal release adhesive layer disposed between a release liner and a polyester backing films (see single coated adhesive type on pg. 2). The thermal release tape of Nitto adheres tightly at room temperature and does not damage the substrate upon tape removal (see pg. 1). Further, Nitto teaches thermal release tapes with release start points at various temperatures of 120, 150, and 170 °C. (see pg. 2).
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 modify the thermal release tapes of Park with the thermal release tape of Nitto such that the thermal release tape comprises thermal release adhesive layer disposed between a release liner and a backing film, for the benefit of the thermal release tape tightly adhering at room temperature while not causing damage to the substrate upon tape removal. Further, Nitto teaches the thermal release tape can be optimized to vary the thermal release temperature, which would be beneficial for modifying the thermal endurance of Park, which can consequently vary the printing times.
Regarding claim 2, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the template substrate has a surface pattern in the form
of a concave-convex by forming a pattern of a desired size (see Figure 1C on pg. 2) using
photolithography, and proceeding to a surface etching with a reactive ion etching (RIE) process
(“The 8-inch Si master mold consisting of three line/space widths (250 nm/250 nm, 500 nm/500
nm, and 1 µm/1 µm) with a depth of 250 nm was fabricated by conventional KrF
photolithography and reactive ion etching (RIE)”- see pg. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the method proceeds with the replica pattern remaining
adhered to the thermal release tape (see replica pattern in Figure 1A) by uniformly adhering
the thermal release tape to one surface of the polymer thin film (see attaching step in Figure
1A) and peeling off the polymer thin film from the template substrate (see detaching step in
Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 5, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 3.
Further, Park teaches wherein the adhering of the thermal release tape uniformly to
one surface of the polymer thin film is carried out through a rolling process or a pressing
process (“When manually attaching and detaching the PI film, a defect-punctured PMMA
replica pattern was obtained owing to the uneven contact between the PI film and the PMMA
film through nonuniform pressure, resulting in many void defects and an abnormal line pattern with numerous microcracks, as shown in Fig. 1 (D and E). On the other hand, when using a
laminating or rolling press system, replication of the PMMA surface pattern on the 8-inch wafer
was successful with uniform contact at an appropriate amount of pressure on the entire
surface, showing excellent pattern formation of well-defined line structures (Fig. 1, F and G, and
figs. S3 and S4)”- see pg. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Park teaches the method further comprising: brush coating the upper portion of the
template substrate with a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) polymer prior to coating the polymer
thin film on the upper portion of the template substrate (“Before the replication process, the 8-
inch Si master mold was surface-treated with a hydroxyl terminated polydimethylsiloxane brush
to impart hydrophobicity onto the Si surface for easy separation of the replica material from
the master mold. After spin-coating poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) dissolved in a mixture
of toluene and acetone onto the hydrophobic surface of the Si mold…”- see pg. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the coating of the polymer thin film on the upper portion
of the template substrate is carried out by a spin coating (“After spin-coating poly(methyl
methacrylate) (PMMA) dissolved in a mixture of toluene and acetone onto the hydrophobic
surface of the Si mold, the spin-coated PMMA thin film was attached with an adhesive PI film”-
see pg. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the functional material is Pt (“After Pt deposition on the
8-inch PMMA replica pattern by the PVD sputtering system, we transfer-printed Pt nanowires onto a transparent and flexible polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate”- see pg. 4) or
silicon oxide (“The sample was then etched by CF4 plasma [gas flow rate, 30 standard cubic
centimeters per minute (sccm); working pressure, 15 mtorr; plasma power, 60 W; etching time,
20 s] and O2 plasma (gas flow rate, 30 sccm; working pressure, 15 mtorr; plasma power, 60 W;
etching time, 30 s), finally resulting in a self- assembled, highly ordered sub–20-nm SiOx line
structure with a line/space width of 18 nm/14 nm”-see pg. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the positioning of the nanostructure deposited on the
replica pattern on the substrate and applying heat and pressure to the nanostructure is carried
out at 150 °C (“After Pt deposition on the 8-inch PMMA replica pattern by the PVD sputtering
system, we transfer-printed Pt nanowires onto a transparent and flexible polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) substrate for 25 s by passing them between two 150°C hot rolls”- see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein the positioning of the nanostructure deposited on the
replica pattern on the substrate and applying heat and pressure to the nanostructure is carried
out for 25 seconds (“Here, it should be emphasized that high-quality patterns on most 8-inch
wafer materials with thermal endurance can be obtained for a short printing time of 25 s when
reliably providing both uniform pressure and heat transfer at 150°C”- see pg. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Park teaches wherein after the nanostructure is printed onto the substrate, the
replication pattern is washed with an organic solvent so that the polymer thin film is removed
and the nanostructure is printed onto the substrate (“Functional nanopatterns on the substrate are ultimately obtained after removing with solvent the residual polymer replica film used as a
medium for the pattern transfer process.”- see pg. 2).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al.
(“Thermally assisted nanotransfer printing with sub–20-nm resolution and 8-inch wafer scalability”, Sci. Adv. 2020; 6: eabb6462) and Nitto (“Thermal Release Sheet for Electronic Component Processing
REVALPHA”, https://www.nitto.com/us/en/products/e_parts/electronic001/- see attached), and further in view of Jung et al. (US20160202123).
Regarding claim 6, Park modified with Nitto teaches the method of claim 1. While
Park teaches the deposition of the functional material is carried out only on a raised portion on
the surface of the replica pattern (see deposition of gold pattern only on raised portion of the
replica pattern in Figure 3A on pg. 5), Park fails to teach wherein the forming a nanostructure
by depositing a functional material is carried out by tilting the replica pattern so that a surface
of the replica pattern on which the deposition is carried out and a direction of the deposition
form a predetermined angle.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to imprint lithography, Jung teaches wherein
the forming a nanostructure by depositing a functional material is carried out by tilting the
replica pattern so that a surface of the replica pattern on which the deposition is carried out
and a direction of the deposition form a predetermined angle ([0013]-[0014] and see angled
deposition step in Figure 1). Angled deposition allows for deposition to occur only on protruded
parts of the surface ([0014] which is slanted to have a specific angle with a surface prepared for
the deposition of the thin-film replica mold in a direction of the deposition, to deposit the
functional material only on protruded parts of the surface prepared for the deposition of the
thin-film replica mold).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to form the nanostructure of Park modified with Nitto by tilting the replica pattern so that a surface of the replica pattern on which the deposition is
carried out and a direction of the deposition form a predetermined, as taught by Jung, to achieve the predictable result of depositing the functional material only on a raised portion on
the surface of the replica pattern. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success
for the functional material of Park to be deposited at an angle, since Park and Jung teach the
deposition of similar materials (Jung teaches the deposition of platinum nanostructures in
[0083]) having a sub–20- nm resolution (see [0084] of Jung and “we demonstrate how to obtain
ultrahigh-resolution patterns of sub–20-nm lines and hierarchical 3D stacked nanostructures”
on pg. 2 of Park) on PMMA films deposited on silicon substrates (see [0092] of Jung).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al.
(“Thermally assisted nanotransfer printing with sub–20-nm resolution and 8-inch wafer scalability”, Sci. Adv. 2020; 6: eabb6462) and Nitto (“Thermal Release Sheet for Electronic Component Processing
REVALPHA”, https://www.nitto.com/us/en/products/e_parts/electronic001/- see attached), and further in view of Tsuchiya et al. (WO2021192319A1- Machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 13, Park modified with Nitta teaches the method of claim 1.
Further, Nitta teaches another of the time films is a PET base film wherein one of the two films is silicone coated release film and another of the two films is PET base film (see polyester backing in single-coated adhesive type on pg. 2). While Nitta teaches a release liner, Nitta fails to explicitly teach the release liner is a silicone coated release film.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to electronic component manufacturing processes with temporary fixing of thermal release tapes, Tsuchiya teaches thermal a release liner is a thermal release adhesive layer comprises a silicone coated release film (“As the release liner, a known release paper or the like can be used. The release liner is used as a protective material for the heat-expandable adhesive layer, and is peeled off when the heat-release type adhesive sheet is attached to the adherend. Examples of the release liner include a plastic film (for example, PET film) surface-treated with a release agent such as silicone-based” and “layer-forming composition material containing a resin component and heat-expandable particles is applied onto a release liner (for example, a silicone-treated PET film)”- see pg.). The release liner protects the heat-expandable adhesive layer (“The release liner is used as a protective material for the heat-expandable adhesive layer, and is peeled off when the heat-release type adhesive sheet is attached to the adherend”- see pg.), and the silicone coating is used as a release agent that promotes the release of the thermal release tape (“Examples of the release liner include a plastic film (for example, PET film) surface-treated with a release agent such as silicone-based”- see pg.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the release liner of Park modified with Nitta to be a silicone coated release film, as taught by Tsuchiya, for the benefit of protecting the heat-expandable adhesive layer and promoting the release of the thermal release tape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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