Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/538,308

IMPRINT METHOD, IMPRINT APPARATUS, AND ARTICLE MANUFACTURING METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 13, 2023
Examiner
ROBINSON, CHANCEITY N
Art Unit
1737
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
54%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

72%
Career Allow Rate
754 granted / 1047 resolved
Without
With
+-18.1%
Interview Lift
avg trend
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
45 pending
1092
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11 currently pending. Claim 11 is withdrawn. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanabe et al. (US 2021/0373217 A1) in view of Ootera et al. (US 2014/01838354 A1). Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-5 and 9-10 ,Tanabe et al. recites an imprint method ( see abstract, claims, and paragraphs [0057 & 0062-0067, referring to Fig, 1) forming a patterned composition on a shot region of a substrate by using a mold having a concave pattern, (using the mold (36) having the concave-convex pattern on the region of substrate) ; the method comprising a first composition by bringing the mold into contact with the first composition on a predetermined region ( first mask pattern composition [ see figures and [0009]) and then separating the mold from the predetermined region in which the first composition is uncured and brining the mold having undergone the filling into with a second composition ( second mask pattern composition; [0010]) on the shot region [0069]and curing the composition and separating the mold from the cured pattern composition obtained in the curing ( see paragraphs [0062-0067]. Tanabe et al. teach the mold (36) is brough in contact with the composition on the predetermined region in a state in which the predetermined region is arranged below the mold (resin (3) and the mold is separated the state in which the resin is not hardened from [0062-0067 and Fig. 1). Tanabe et al. teach an article manufacturing method ( claims and [0083-0085]) comprising forming a patterned composition on a substrate using an imprint method; processing the substrate with the pattern composition formed thereon in the forming; and manufacturing an article (optical device or film) from the substrate proceed in the processing Although Tanabe et al. do not explicitly recite a step of filling and first and second mask composition are integrated composition as instantly claimed, the examiner has added Ootera et al. to teach it well-known to one of ordinary skilled in the to disclose an imprint method wherein the first composition ( the mold (11) ) is combined in the resist ( 14) on the material (13) (second composition) to become integrated ( see paragraphs [0031-0033, referring to fig, 2). Furthermore, Ootera et al. disclose the step of filing concave (recessed) portions with the composition ( see Fig. 1 & 2b and [0040]) in view of improving the transfer property. Ootera et al. and Tanabe et al. are analogous art in the imprint method area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the imprint method of Tanabe et al. to through a design change to include the composition on the shot area, filing the composition and integrating the composition as taught by Ootera et al. in view of improving transfer property. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3 and 6-8 are 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCEITY N ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00 am-6:00 pm; IFP; PHP). 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, Mark Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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. /CHANCEITY N ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 13, 2023
Application Filed
May 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 01, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 11, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 11, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12595415
AROMATIC ISOTHIOCYANATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595414
FERROELECTRIC NEMATIC LIQUID CRYSTALLINE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595417
LIQUID-CRYSTAL MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577468
THERMOPLASTIC COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577469
COMPOUND, COMPOSITION, CURED PRODUCT, OPTICALLY ANISOTROPIC BODY, OPTICAL ELEMENT, AND LIGHT GUIDE ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
54%
With Interview (-18.1%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1047 resolved cases by this examiner