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 with traverse of Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the examination of all of the claims is not believed to create an undue burden on the USPTO and that the subject matter among the inventions is not independent and distinct as required by statute. Furthermore, different classifications as recited by the USPTO are not independent adequate grounds for restriction since the USPTO has historically examined applications containing multiple sets of claims. This is not found persuasive because Claims 1-7 pertain to a method and Claims 8-11 pertain to a product. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. For instance, the stamp can be used in a method comprising pressing the stamp into a clay or foam workpiece instead of a waveguide workpiece.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions require different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SINGH et al. (2018/0107110).
Regarding claim 1, SINGH et al. discloses a method comprising:
a flexible template (112) (working stamp) comprising micro- (at least one waveguide feature pattern) and nano- patterns (see Fig.4A) (at least one process control feature pattern) [0039];
pressing the flexible template (working stamp) into a substrate (102) (waveguide workpiece) (Fig.4A-step 404), spreading the imprint fluid drops so as to generate a contiguous patterned layer (180) (Fig.4A-step 410) (thereby forming waveguide features in one or more functional waveguide zones of the waveguide workpiece and one or more sets of process control features in one or more regions outside of the one or more functional waveguide zones) [0050]; and
removing the flexible template (working stamp) from the substrate (waveguide workpiece) ([0052]; Fig.4A-step 406).
Regarding claims 2-3, SINGH et al. discloses the micro- and nano-patterns have been etched or formed into the imprint lithography template (working stamp) [0013]-[0018] and several other patterns may be used as well (Fig.6) [0071]-[0074].
Regarding claim 6, SINGH et al. discloses surface gratings [0020].
Regarding claim 15, SINGH et al. discloses the depth of the nano-patterns (process control features) are equal to the depths of the waveguide features (Fig.4A), [0025].
Regarding claim 16, SINGH et al. discloses the micro- and nano-patterns have been etched or formed into the imprint lithography template (working stamp) [0013]-[0018]; Fig.4A.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al. (2018/0107110) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 above.
The teachings of SINGH et al. are applied as described above for claims 1-3, 6, 15,
and 16.
Regarding claim 4-5, 14, and 18, SINGH et al. is silent to having more than one nano-patterns (process control feature pattern) as claimed. However, SINGH et al. discloses the template can be formed to have more complex structural geometries and patterns [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed claimed patterns (i.e. more than one nano-pattern) in the template of SINGH et al. based on desired features for the waveguide.
Regarding claims 7, 19, 20, SINGH et al. is silent to claimed pattern features on the template. However, SINGH et al. discloses the template can be formed to have more complex structural geometries and patterns [0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed claimed patterns in the template of SINGH et al. based on desired features for the waveguide.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SINGH et al. (2018/0107110) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 15, and 16 above and in further view of YOUNG et al. (2019/0369321).
The teachings of SINGH et al. are applied as described above for claims 1-3, 6, 15,
and 16.
Regarding claims 12-13, SINGH et al. discloses removing the flexible template (working stamp) from the substrate (waveguide workpiece) ([0052]; Fig.4A-step 406) but is silent to removing from one end to another as claimed. However, YOUNG et al. discloses it is common to remove the template from one end to the other (peeling) ([0027]; Fig.4C) in producing a imprinted waveguide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have removed the template of SINGH et al. by peeling it as taught by YOUNG et al. in the predictable results of removing the template to produce the imprinted or patterned waveguide.
Regarding claim 17, SINGH et al. is silent to an anti-sticking layer. However, YOUNG et al. teach templates or stamps may be coated with a mono-layer of anti-stick surface treatment coating, such as fluorinated coating, so the stamp can be mechanically removed by a machine tool or by hand peeling [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of SINGH et al. by incorporating the anti-stick surface treatment on the template as taught by YOUNG et al. for the advantages of easily removing the template from the waveguide workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) LEE et al. (2013/0113594) discloses a stamp for manufacturing conductor line.
b) THALLNER (2005/0005801) discloses a method for forming a surface structure on a wafer.
c) DONA et al. (2005/0173049) discloses a method for transferring a pattern from stamp to a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STELLA KIM YI whose telephone number is (571)270-5123. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
STELLA YI
Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/STELLA K YI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742