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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5-10 are the elected claims and are being examined on the merits.
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 6-7 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 6 recites the term “a receiving layer” but it is not clear if this is the same or a different receiving layer as that recited in claim 5. Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent from claim 6. This is interpreted as referring to any receiving layer.
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 1, 5-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thothadri (US 2022/0121114).
Regarding claim 1, Thothadri meets the claimed, A method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation, the method comprising: depositing a masking layer on a surface of an imprint lithography mold formed by a plurality of tiled imprint lithography master substrates (Thothadri [0052] describes the masking film 340 is applied between two masers 302A and 302B) to selectively cover a defect on the surface and form a masked imprint lithography mold; (Thothadri [0052] describes the masking film 340 covers the seam 312) and forming a negative imprint lithography mold from the masked imprint lithography mold, (Thothadri [0054] describes using the formed seamless master 270 to imprint a stamp) wherein the defect is a result of a stitch line at a boundary between the imprint lithography master substrates (Thothadri [0052] describes the seam 312 between the masters 302A/B.)
Regarding claim 5, Thothadri meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein forming the negative imprint lithography mold comprises pressing the masked imprint lithography mold into a receiving layer on a substrate using imprint lithography, (Thothadri [0048] describes the seamless stamp 208 formed in [0054] is a polymer on a substrate) the substrate and receiving layer becoming the formed negative imprint lithography mold after pressing (Thothadri [0045] describes the seamless stamp 208 is the negative of the seamless master 270.)
Regarding claim 6, Thothadri meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, further comprising forming a patterned device substrate using imprint lithography employing the negative imprint lithography mold to imprint a receiving layer of the patterned device substrate (Thothadri [0054] describes using the negative seamless stamp 208 for further imprinting for a final product substrate.)
Regarding claim 8, Thothadri meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, further comprising forming a positive imprint lithography mold using the negative imprint lithography mold to imprint a receiving layer of the positive imprint lithography mold (Thothadri [0046] describes using the seamless stamp 208 to imprint a positive image on a final product made of a photoresist and a substrate.)
Regarding claim 9, Thothadri meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein the defect is between nanoscale features of the imprint lithography mold (Thothadri Figure 3B shows the seam 312 between features 310A and 310B, [0064] describes nanoscale features.)
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Thothadri (US 2022/0121114.)
Regarding claim 7, Thothadri does not describe the materials of the final products and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 6, wherein the receiving layer comprises ultraviolet-curable (UV-curable) hybrid polymer deposited as a layer on a surface of a glass substrate of the patterned device substrate, however, Thothadri [0046] and [0054] disclose the final product is a photoresist material on a substrate and Thothadri [0048] discloses a known material for the Ormostamp as a resist material and [0028] discloses a known substrate material is glass.
The courts have held that combining prior art elements 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 combine the resist/substrate of the final product as described in Thothadri [0046] and [0054] with the Ormostamp resist and glass substrate as disclosed in other embodiments of Thothadri because they are all known materials for resists and substrates in imprinting or mold making processes, see Thothadri [0028] and [0028].
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thothadri modified by Schaper (US 2014/0017614.)
Regarding claim 2, Thothadri describes a mask covering the seam but does not describe it as a photoresist or pattern/expose it using a mask and does not meet the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein depositing the masking layer to selectively cover a defect comprises: applying a photoresist to the surface of the imprint lithography mold having the defect; patterning the photoresist using a photolithographic mask to expose the photoresist; and developing the exposed photoresist to pattern the masking layer on the surface of the imprint lithography mold to form the masked imprint lithography mold.
Schaper also describes a method of splicing together multiple patterns to form a large, seamless master mold for imprinting. Schaper meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein depositing the masking layer to selectively cover a defect comprises: applying a photoresist to the surface of the imprint lithography mold having the defect; (Schaper [0027] describes coating a photoresist 37 to cover the underlying layer 35 and the space between the underlying layer and the pattern 33, see Figure 1F) patterning the photoresist using a photolithographic mask to expose the photoresist; (Schaper [0027] describes using a mask 39 to expose the photoresist 37) and developing the exposed photoresist to pattern the masking layer on the surface of the imprint lithography mold to form the masked imprint lithography mold (Schaper Figure 1H shows the cured portion of the photoresist was removed.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of covering the seam between the patterns as described in Thothadri with the method of applying a photoresist and patterning the resist as described in Schaper in order to minimize the seams between the pattern areas, see Schaper [0016].
Regarding claim 3, Thothadri does not describe a photoresist. Schaper further meets the claimed meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 2, wherein applying the photoresist comprises coating the photoresist on the surface of the imprint lithography mold (Schaper [0027] describes coating the photoresist 37.)
Regarding claim 10, Thothadri does not apply a nanoscale feature at the defect and does not meet the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein the masking layer further defines a nanoscale feature of the imprint lithography mold.
Schaper meets the claimed, The method of imprint lithography mold defect mitigation of Claim 1, wherein the masking layer further defines a nanoscale feature of the imprint lithography mold (Schaper Figure 1I and 1J show the remaining resist is further patterned, [0016] describes the features are nanostructures.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the method of filling the seam as described in Thothadri with the method of patterning the masking layer as described in Schaper in order to make the pattern continuous and seamless, see Schaper [0016].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2021/0181625: see Figures 5A-5F and the accompanying description beginning at [0037] describing applying a filler material 508 to a seam between two masters 504, the master is then replicated onto stamp 510 and further replicated into a final product
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