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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments 6/10/2026 overcame the previous rejections under 112(a) but have also necessitated new 112(a) rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tsutsumi does not describe not supplying a droplet to the first position in a case where the first position height is lower than the second position height but rather corrects the supply position. Examiner agrees that Tsutsumi does not meet all the limitations in claim 1 as best can be interpreted, see 112 section below. After further search and consideration, Otsuka is cited which teaches only dispensing a resist material to the higher side of a tilted substrate.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that details of the substrate claimed in claim 1 and other claims including the complete and partial regions are details of the materials being worked upon by the apparatus and are not positively recited structural limitations of the apparatus itself, see MPEP §2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the second position is in the partial region and is located closer to a center side of the substrate than the first position” but this is not supported by the original specification. The specification describes measuring a plurality of points in the partial region or a point in the inner region with the center, see [0038] or [0042], but does not disclose a second position which is both in the partial region and closer to the center side. Additionally, the term “center side” is unclear, see 112(b) below. Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are 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.
Claim 1 recites that the second position is “closer to a center side” than the first position. This limitation is unclear. It is not clear which side is the “center side” of the substrate and it is also not clear how one position would be closer to the center side than the other. This is interpreted as referring to the center of the substrate surface with the pattern. Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are also rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (JP6590667B2, see English translation provided) modified by Otsuka (JPH0689854A, see translation provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi meets the claimed, An imprint apparatus that performs an imprint process of forming a pattern on an imprint material supplied on a substrate by bringing the imprint material into contact with a mold, (Tsutsumi [0015] describes an imprint apparatus 100) the imprint apparatus comprising: a holding unit configured to hold the substrate; (Tsutsumi [0018] describes a substrate chuck 112a) a supply unit configured to supply droplets of the imprint material to a plurality of regions on the substrate (Tsutsumi [0021] describes an ejection unit 115) the plurality of regions including a complete region the complete region overlapping with an entire area of the pattern region of the mold, (Tsutsumi [0035] describes the central region of the substrate and Figure 4 shows one of the pattern regions 120 is a complete region) and a partial region, the partial region including an edge of the substrate overlapping with only a part of the pattern region of the mold which is to come into contact with the imprint material in the partial region in the imprint process (Tsutsumi [0035] describes the outer peripheral region as being on the outer area of the center) and a control unit including one or more processors and at least one memory, (Tsutsumi [0028] describes a control unit having a CPU and RAM) the control unit being configured to determine at least one of a position and an amount of a droplet of the imprint material to be supplied to the partial region, based on measurement data on a surface height of the substrate at a first position in the partial region in a state in which the holding unit holds the substrate, (Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] describes a measurement unit 126 that measures the height of the substrate 101 including in the peripheral region and [0037] describes the control unit 122 corrects the supply conditions of the imprint material 102 based on the measurements) cause the supply unit to supply the droplet of the imprint material to the partial region, based on at least one of the determined position and the determined amount of the droplet of the imprint material, (Tsutsumi [0038] describes supplying the imprint material based on the corrected conditions) cause the imprint apparatus to form the pattern on the imprint material by bringing the imprint material supplied to the partial region into contact with the mold (Tsutsumi [0039] describes contacting the imprint material 102 with the mold 103 and irradiating to cure the material) and the second position is in the partial region and is located closer to a center side of the substrate than the first position (Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] describes points of measurement from a peripheral region and a more ventral region.)
Tsutsumi does not explicitly describe that the measurement unit measures the height of two positions in the partial region and does not explicitly meet the claimed, and a surface height of the substrate at a second position in the partial region, wherein the first position is in an outer peripheral portion of the partial region including the edge of the substrate, and the second position is in the partial region however, Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] explains that multiple measurement points should be taken from the central and peripheral regions of the substrate so that an accurate function, such as a quadratic or higher-order function, may be approximated to accurately describe the height distribution of the substrate. When approximating a quadratic or higher-order function as described in Tsutsumi [0034], at least three points are required for the approximation. Given the teaching in Tsutsumi [0035] that points should be selected from both the central and peripheral regions, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that selecting at least two points in the peripheral region and one in central region is one of two options when three or more points are measured. The courts have held that choosing from a finite number of identified and predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(I)(E). Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date that selecting more points from any region, the partial region included, would make the function approximation more accurate, see Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035].
Tsutsumi describes a controller which determines and alters a supply plan to change the location of where the drop is released but does not describe not applying the droplet to the position at all and does not meet the claimed, in a case where the surface height of the substrate at the first position is lower than the surface height of the substrate at the second position, determines the position of the droplet such that the droplet is not supplied to the first position.
Analogous in the field of imprinting, Otsuka also described applying resist material to a tilted substrate and meets the claimed, in a case where the surface height of the substrate at the first position is lower than the surface height of the substrate at the second position, determines the position of the droplet such that the droplet is not supplied to the first position (Otsuka [0008]-[0009] describes a coating machine 3 applies resist 5 to a tilted substrate 4 only by dispensing the resist to the higher portion of the substrate, see Figure 1. The resist is not directly applied to the lower portions of the substrate.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Tsutsumi which adjusts the dispensing positions of the resist material with the apparatus of Otsuka which only supplies resist to higher positions in order to reduce the amount of resist applied, see Otsuka [0010].
Regarding claim 5, Tsutsumi meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 1, further comprising a measurement unit configured to measure the surface height of the substrate at the first position in the partial region and the surface height of the substrate at the second position in the partial region in the a state in which the substrate is held by the holding unit (Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] describes a measurement unit 126 that measures the height of the substrate 101 including in the peripheral region.)
Regarding claim 6, the first embodiment of Tsutsumi does not describe shape and does not meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the measurement data on the surface height of the substrate at the first position in the partial region and the surface height of the substrate at a second position in the partial region includes information on a surface shape of the substrate in the partial region, however, the third embodiment of Tsutsumi described in [0056] teaches measuring the surface shape of the substrate 101, see also [0059] and [0061] describing changing the supply condition in response to the shape of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the first embodiment of Tsutsumi which measures the height of the substrate with the third embodiment which measures the shape of the substrate in order to control the ejection timing and produce a more accurate distribution pattern, see Tsutsumi [0061].
Regarding claim 8, Tsutsumi meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position and the amount of the droplet of the imprint material to be supplied to the partial region (Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] describes a measurement unit 126 that measures the height of the substrate 101 including in the peripheral region and [0037] describes the control unit 122 corrects the supply conditions of the imprint material 102 based on the measurements, by controlling the distribution of the drops, the control unit is inherently controlling the amount distributed.)
Claims 2-3 and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi as modified by Otsuka as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Miyajima (US 2007/0262049.)
Regarding claim 2, Tsutsumi meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the position or the amount of the droplet of the imprint material to be supplied to the partial region, based on the measurement data on the surface height of the substrate at the first position in the partial region and the surface height of substrate at the second position in the partial region (Tsutsumi [0034]-[0035] describes a measurement unit 126 that measures the height of the substrate 101 at multiple positions including in the peripheral region.)
Tsutsumi does not disclose a height of the droplet material on the substrate and does not meet the claimed, and a height of the droplet of the imprint material in a state after supply of the imprint material to the substrate.
Analogous in the field of imprint apparatus, Miyajima meets the claimed, and a height of the droplet of the imprint material in a state after supply of the imprint material to the substrate (Tsutsumi [0056] discloses adjusting or increasing a supplied amount of resin to make the resin on the substrate thicker.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus in Tsutsumi with the apparatus of Miyajima which alters the dispensing of the resin based on the thickness of the resin on the substrate in order to prevent unfilled areas due to a distorted resin shape, see Tsutsumi [0056].
Regarding claim 3, Miyajima further meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the height of the droplet of the imprint material is calculated based on a period of time from when the droplet of the imprint material reaches a surface of the substrate to when the mold comes into contact with the droplet of the imprint material (Miyajima [0056] describes the resin spreading due to the shape of the workpiece which necessarily occurs after the material reaches a substrate and before the imprinting step because more resin is being supplied still.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Tsutsumi with the height of the material being after contact and before imprinting such that additional resin can be added prior to imprinting to prevent underfilling, see Miyajima [0056].
Regarding claim 7, Tsutsumi does not describe the shape of the imprint material and does not meet the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the height of the droplet of the imprint material includes information on a shape of the droplet of the imprint material
Analogous in the field of imprint apparatus, Miyajima meets the claimed, The imprint apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the height of the droplet of the imprint material includes information on a shape of the droplet of the imprint material (Miyajima [0056] describes alerting the dispensing of the UV resin 80 in response to the shape of the resin 80 as it spreads out on the surface of the substrate.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus in Tsutsumi with the apparatus of Miyajima which alters the dispensing of the resin based on the shape of the resin on the substrate in order to prevent unfilled areas due to a distorted resin shape, see Tsutsumi [0056].
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
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights