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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/21/2026 are not entirely persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously cited references do not describe the residual as being liquid-repellent material in the periphery of the upper surface as now claimed in claim 1. Examiner agrees that the previous references did not describe a residual material meeting these limitations however a new reference, Abe, is cited which does describe this material. Abe also discloses a resist material which acts as a protection material.
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.
Claims 8-9 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.
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation “the liquid-repellent layer formed on a portion of the protective layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither preceding claim 6 nor claim 7 state that the liquid-repellent layer is formed on the protective layer and therefore the term “the liquid-repellent layer formed on….the protective layer” lacks antecedent basis. This is being interpreted as referring to the residual layer because the protective layer and the residual layer are claimed as being in the same location, see also Figure 5 of the instant specification.
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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe (JP2021064664A, see English translation provided) modified by Demura (US 2018/0117795) as evidenced by 3M Novec (“3M Novec 7100 Engineered Fluid”, 2009, see copy provided.)
Regarding claim 1, Abe meets the claimed, A removing method of removing a residual attached to a mold which includes a base having a main surface and a convex portion provided on the main surface and in which a concavo-convex pattern formed on an upper surface of the convex portion is pressed against a curable composition, (Abe Figure 7 shows a mold with a base 11a, a resin layer 12’ forming a convex portion, and a pattern on the layer 12’) the removing method comprising: removing the residual, which is a liquid-repellent material attached to an outer peripheral edge of the upper surface of the convex portion at which the upper surface and a side surface of the convex portion meet, (Abe [0084] and [0086] describe removing a water-repellent release layer 13p, see Figure 7B showing the release layer 13p is located on the peripheral edge of the pattern area) wherein the removing of the residual includes contacting the mold with a predetermined solvent that is liquid at 25°C (Abe [0086] describe removing the release layer 13p with an MEA/DMSO mixture, both monoethanolamine and dimethyl sulfoxide are liquid at 25°C.)
Abe does not specify that the release layer 13p is dissolved and also does not have any additional liquid-repellent layers on the sides and does not meet the claimed, to dissolve the residual and at least a surface portion of a liquid-repellent layer formed on at least the side surface of the convex portion.
Analogous in the field of imprint molds, Demura also describes a liquid repellent layer on a mold and meets the claimed, to dissolve the residual and at least a surface portion of a liquid-repellent layer formed on at least the side surface of the convex portion (Demura [0046]-[0047] describes removing a portion of the liquid-repellent component on the sides of the mold via dissolving, see figure 7.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of removing the liquid-repelling materials in Abe with the steps of dissolving them as described in Demura in order to remove selected components from the layers, see Demura [0047]-[0048]
Regarding claim 5, Abe describes MEA/DMSO and does not meet the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined solvent includes at least one of a hydrofluoroether, a perfluorocarbon, or a hydrofluorocarbon
Demura meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined solvent includes at least one of a hydrofluoroether, a perfluorocarbon, or a hydrofluorocarbon (Demura [0046] describes Novec which is a hydrofluoroether, see 3M Novec page 1 describing Novec as containing Methoxy-nonafluorobutane, a hydrofluoroether.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the cleaning materials described in Abe for the hydrofluoroether described in Demura because it is a known solvent for selectively removing components of liquid repellent layers, see Demura [0046]-[0047].
Regarding claim 6, Abe meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, further comprising forming, by applying a liquid protective material, a protective layer that prevents the liquid- repellent layer from being formed on at least an outer peripheral portion of the concavo- convex pattern in the mold (Abe [0082]-[0083] describes adding a resist pattern 23’, see Figure 7B showing the resist pattern 23’ covers the edge of the pattern such that the release layer 13p is not formed on the outermost peripheral portion.)
Regarding claim 7, Abe meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 6, further comprising: forming the liquid-repellent layer, wherein the liquid-repellent layer is formed after the protective layer is formed (Abe [0082] and [0084] describes forming the release layer 13p after forming the resist pattern 23’.)
Abe does not describe the liquid repellent layer on the side surface and does not meet the claimed, forming the liquid-repellent layer on at least the side surface of the convex portion of the mold.
Demura meets the claimed, forming the liquid-repellent layer on at least the side surface of the convex portion of the mold (Demura [0041] describes forming the liquid-repellent layer 53 over the entire side surface of the convex portion of the mold.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of forming the liquid-repelling layer as described in Abe with the step of forming the liquid repelling layer on the side of the mold as described in Demura in order to prevent material from adhering to the side during imprinting, see Demura [0064].
Regarding claim 8, Abe meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 7, further comprising: removing the protective layer and the liquid-repellent layer formed on a portion of the protective layer, wherein the protective layer and the liquid-repellent layer formed on the portion of the protective layer are removed after the liquid-repellent layer is formed, and wherein the removing of the protective layer includes dissolving the protective layer with water or an organic solvent (Abe [0082]-[0086] describes applying the protective resist pattern 23’, then applying the repellent release layer 13p, then removing the release layer 13p by dissolving the resist pattern 23’ in a lift-off method using MEA/DMSO.)
Regarding claim 9, Abe meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 8, wherein the residual is removed after the protective layer and the liquid-repellent layer formed on the portion of the protective layer are removed (Abe [0082]-[0086] describes applying the protective resist pattern 23’, then applying the repellent release layer 13p, then removing the release layer 13p by dissolving the resist pattern 23’ in a lift-off method using MEA/DMSO. This is determined to meet the claim as best can be interpreted since there is no antecedent basis for liquid-repellent layer formed on the protective layer, see 112(b) section above.)
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe modified by Demura (US 2018/0117795) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sato (US 2017/0040161, equivalent of US 10,359,697 made of record on the IDS dated 4/18/2024.)
Regarding claim 2, neither Abe nor Demura disclose a fluorocarbon repellent material and do not meet the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid- repellent layer and the residual each include a polymer having a fluorocarbon chain.
Sato also describes forming a template with a repellent layer on it and meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid-repellent layer and the residual each include include a polymer having a fluorocarbon chain (Sato [0032]-[0033] describes the resist repellent layer 4 is made of a fluorocarbons.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the material of the repellent layer in Abe with the fluorocarbon repellent layer in Sato because it is a known liquid repellent material for use in imprint templates, see Sato [0032]-[0033].
Regarding claim 4, Abe does not describe a volatile solvent and does not meet the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined solvent is a volatile solvent that dissolves the liquid repellent material, which includes a polymer having a fluorocarbon chain.
Demura meets the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined solvent is a volatile solvent that dissolves the liquid repellent material, (Demura [0046] describes gases that can dissolve a fluorocarbon chain including hydrofluoroethers and perfluoropolyethers.)
Neither Abe nor Demura disclose a fluorocarbon repellent material and does not meet the claimed, liquid repellent material which includes a polymer having a fluorocarbon chain.
Sato meets the claimed, liquid repellent material which includes a polymer having a fluorocarbon chain. (Sato [0032]-[0033] describes the resist repellent layer 4 is made of a fluorocarbons.)
The courts have held that substituting one known prior art element for another according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the material of the repellent layer in Abe with the fluorocarbon repellent layer in Sato because it is a known liquid repellent material for use in imprint templates, see Sato [0032]-[0033].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe modified Demura as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ito (US 2020/0341370).
Regarding claim 3, Abe does not disclose liquid repellent material on the sides. Demura describes forming a uniform thickness layer of the repellent liquid but does not describe the thickness after the cleaning step. Analogous in the field of repellent layer application, Ito does not explicitly describe the thickness of the repellent film 3 remaining after removal and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The removing method according to claim 1, wherein after removing the residual, a film thickness of the surface portion of the liquid-repellent layer remaining on the side surface of the convex portion is 3 nm or more, however, Ito [0061] discloses that the thickness of repellent film 3 remaining after etching should be enough to cover the sides of the mesa portion, see Figure 4-6. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the thickness of the film remaining such that the film can be level with the mesa surface, see Figure 4-6 and [0061].
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