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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues that the amendments to claims 1 and 7, including the outer peripheral portion being divided into regions which surround the center portion is not met by the cited references. Examiner notes that after further search and consideration, an additional reference, Aritsuka, has been cited which meets these limitations.
Applicant also argues that the cited references do not disclose placing the plurality of regions into the patterned surface based on the optimal distance but does not specifically point out why the references, particularly Inanami, do not describe this. Examiner disagrees and cites Inanami as teaching these features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 specifies that the optimal distance is the distance between the outer peripheral edge and an inner side of the patterned surface but claim 5 previously specified that the optimal distance was between the outer peripheral edge and an end of each of the plurality of regions along the circumferential direction. The inner side of the patterned surface as recited in claim 10 does not seem to be limited to just the plurality of regions but rather any side of the patterned surface as a whole. This makes claim 10 more broad than claim 5.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 5-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inanami (US 2010/0237540.)
Regarding claim 5, Inanami meets the claimed, A pattern formation method, comprising: dividing an outer peripheral portion of a patterned surface including a pattern into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction, the outer peripheral portion having an outer peripheral edge; (Inanami [0056] describes dividing a template pattern into a plurality of areas, see Figures 12-14 or 18 showing direction and outer peripheral edges) calculating a pattern density of each of the plurality of regions; (Inanami [0057] describes determining a surface area ratio of each area) determining an optimal distance between the outer peripheral edge of the patterned surface and an end edge of each of the plurality of regions based on the calculated pattern density (Inanami [0058]-[0060] describe determining the location of the patterns in the regions based on the surface area ratio, the location would necessarily include the distance to the edge, since the location is based on the surface area ratio the distance is optimal in terms of the surface area ratio) and placing the plurality of regions into the patterned surface based on the optimal distance (Inanami [0060]-[0061] describes placement of patterns in a particular area.)
Regarding claim 6, Inanami meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 5, wherein the pattern density includes an area ratio or a volume ratio (Inanami [0057] describes a surface area ratio.)
Regarding claim 8, Inanami meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of regions includes a first region and a second region where the pattern density is higher than the first region; (Inanami [0063] and Figure 12 show area 31 has a larger density than area 32 which has a larger density than area 33) the distance of the second region is longer than distance of the first region (Figure 12 shows the area 32 is further from the edge of the plate than area 33.)
Regarding claim 10, Inanami meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 5, wherein the optimal distance is a distance from the outer peripheral edge to an inner side of the patterned surface (Inanami [0058]-[0060] describe determining the location of the patterns in the regions based on the surface area ratio, the location would necessarily include the distance of at least some part of the pattern to the edge. The term “inner side of the patterned surface” is broad because there is no “inner side” specified and can also refer to any point on the surface of the pattern area.)
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 1-4, 7, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meijer (US 2006/0230959) modified by Aritsuka (US 2016/0091788.)
Regarding claim 1, Meijer meets the claimed, A pattern design method for a template comprising: dividing an outer peripheral portion of a patterned surface including a device pattern into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction (Meijer [0072] describes dividing a patterned template into regions, see Figure 4 showing the direction) and disposing a dummy pattern in the outer peripheral portion, causing a pattern density of each of the plurality of regions to fall within a first range based on information regarding the device pattern (Meijer [0079]-[0081] describes adding dummy patterns so that the pattern density exceeds a minimum density.)
Meijer does not explicitly disclose a central and outer peripheral portion surrounding it and does not meet the claimed, a template including a center portion and an outer peripheral portion surrounding the center a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction that surround the center portion of the template.
Analogous in the field of imprint templates, Aritsuka also describes divisions between patterns and dummy patterns on a template and meets the claimed, a template including a center portion and an outer peripheral portion surrounding the center a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction that surround the center portion of the template. (Aritsuka [0083] describes a template shown in Figure 8 which has a main pattern region 32 in the center and a plurality of dummy pattern regions 33 surrounding the pattern region 32 circumferentially along the sides. Figure 3 and [0053] also shows dummy regions 33 on the periphery and a pattern region 32 in the center.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the locations of the pattern and dummy patterns described in Meijer with the dummy pattern surrounding the pattern region on the sides as described in Aritsuka in order to create flow paths to sufficiently fill the mold with the imprint resin and prevent defects, see Aritsuka [0058].
Regarding claim 2, Meijer meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 1, wherein the pattern density includes an area ratio or a volume ratio (Meijer [0066] describes pattern density as a ratio of volume of medium per unit area.)
Regarding claim 3, Meijer meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 1, wherein the first range is ±10% with respect to a pattern density of at least one of the plurality of regions (Meijer [0080] describe adding dummy patterns to increase the pattern density to the minimum for at least one pattern area.)
Regarding claim 4, Meijer meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 3, wherein the at least one region has a highest pattern density among the plurality of regions (Meijer [0080] describes a general desire to have a uniform density meaning all the regions would be the highest density.)
Regarding claim 7, Meijer meets the claimed, A method for manufacturing a template comprising: dividing the outer peripheral portion of a patterned surface including a device pattern and a dummy pattern into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction; (Meijer [0072] describes dividing a patterned template into regions, see Figure 4 showing the direction) disposing the dummy pattern in the outer peripheral portion, causing a pattern density of each of the plurality of regions to fall within a first range based on information regarding the device pattern; (Meijer [0079]-[0081] describes adding dummy patterns so that the pattern density exceeds a minimum density) deriving pattern information of a template through the dividing and the disposing; (Meijer [0082] describes obtaining a pattern density of the pattern) and forming the device pattern and the dummy pattern in the patterned surface based on the derived pattern information (Meijer [0082] describes providing the template with the patterned regions and dummy patterns based on the pattern densities.)
Meijer does not explicitly disclose a central and outer peripheral portion surrounding it and does not meet the claimed, a template including a center portion and an outer peripheral portion surrounding the center portion, a dummy pattern into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction that surrounds the center portion of the template.
Analogous in the field of imprint templates, Aritsuka also describes divisions between patterns and dummy patterns on a template and meets the claimed, a template including a center portion and an outer peripheral portion surrounding the center portion, a dummy pattern into a plurality of regions along a circumferential direction that surrounds the center portion of the template (Aritsuka [0083] describes a template shown in Figure 8 which has a main pattern region 32 in the center and a plurality of dummy pattern regions 33 surrounding the pattern region 32 circumferentially along the sides. Figure 3 and [0053] also shows dummy regions 33 on the periphery and a pattern region 32 in the center.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the locations of the pattern and dummy patterns described in Meijer with the dummy pattern surrounding the pattern region on the sides as described in Aritsuka in order to create flow paths to sufficiently fill the mold with the imprint resin and prevent defects, see Aritsuka [0058].
Regarding claim 9, Meijer meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions includes a square shape or a rectangular shape (Meijer [0087] describes regions where the pattern is adjusted are square or rectangular.)
Regarding claim 11, Meijer meets the claimed, The pattern design method according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of regions includes a square shape or a rectangular shape (Meijer [0087] describes regions where the pattern is adjusted are square or rectangular.)
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 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
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744