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 Amendment
The amendment filed 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 17-18 are new additions. Claims 1-3, 8-14 and 17-18 are pending. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome 112(b) rejection and Specification objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 02/23/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 05/19/2026 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2017/0200639 A1 – of record), in view of Khusnatdinov (US 2020/0401040 A1 – of record), in view of Park et al. (KR 101205826 B1 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses a method for forming a porous body having a pattern – (construed as a pattern forming method). The method to include applying a photocurable composition including a polymerizable compound to a substrate; sandwiching the photocurable composition between the substrate and a mold and then irradiating the photocurable composition with light to cure the photocurable composition; and releasing the mold from a surface of the cured photocurable composition, see at least [0018] – (construed as a contact step of bringing a curable composition containing a polymerizable compound and arranged on a substrate into contact with a mold; a curing step of forming a cured film including a pattern formed by a cured product of the curable composition by irradiating the curable composition arranged on the substrate with light; and a separation step of separating the cured film and the mold).
Goto does not explicitly disclose the substrate is divided into fields, or irradiating time based on a target line width of the pattern.
Khusnatdinov discloses a nanoimprinting system with a drop pattern forming method for forming a drop pattern on a substrate in which the drop pattern is corrected. Wherein the reference discloses it is useful to deposit a plurality of drops of formable material onto a substrate which is then imprinted in a field by field basis or on a whole substrate basis, see [0068]. The field is dividable into a plurality of imprint fields, see [0061] – (construed as the substrate has a field, and the field includes a plurality of regions). One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such a drop scheme to coat its substrate as this allows for ejecting the formable material (i.e. curable composition containing a polymerizable compound) in select fields on the substrate in part or whole, see at least [0061], [0068].
Park discloses a nanoimprinting process for forming a pattern on a substrate using irradiation. The process to include curing a material with irradiation and a technique of changing a line width of the pattern by controlling the time, temperature, heating time, etc. of the irradiation source, see at least [0005], [0040] – (construed as in the curing step, the curable composition is irradiated with light in accordance with an illuminance and an irradiation time decided based on a target line width of the pattern). One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such an illumination technique as this allows for forming specific patterns according to physical characteristics like line widths.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Goto to have the substrate be dividable into fields having a plurality of regions, as taught by Khusnatdinov and use a technique of using an illuminance power and irradiation time to form a desired line width of a pattern as taught by Park to provide the method with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 2-3, as previously discussed, modified Goto discloses having a plurality of imprint fields, see Khusnatdinov [0061] – (construed as letting an mth region (m is an integer not less than 1 and not more than M, and M is the number of the plurality of regions) be each of the plurality of regions). Goto further discloses the exposure luminance is 1 to 50 mW/cm2 (≈ 10 W/m2 to 500 W/m2), see Goto [0158] – (construed as I(m) [W/m2] be the illuminance of light to irradiate the mth region; and for all the plurality of regions, the illuminance I(m) is not less than 100 and not more than 100,000 [W/m2]).
And where an amount of exposure is 5 to 1,000 mJ/cm2 , see Goto [0158]. It being readily understood that (mJ/cm2) is a unit dosage over a time period. That is taking an illumination power of 10 mW/cm2 ≈ 100 W/m2 for an exposure time of 1 second gives an exposure amount of 100 W·s/m2 ≈ 100 mJ/cm2. Thus, at least as part of routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill would devise an illumination scheme having an exposure amount of 100 mJ/cm2 which has an illumination of 10 mW/cm2 ≈ 100 W/m2 – (construed as I(m) = 100) with a 1 second exposure time – (construed as t(m) = 1). Where ✓I(m) x t(m) = √(100) * 1 = 10 [(√W)·s/m]. And one would do so as Goto discloses such an exposure illuminance improves the curability of the composition. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, as previously discussed, modified Goto discloses “the curable composition is irradiated with light in accordance with an illuminance and an irradiation time decided based on a target line width of the pattern”, see the rejection of claim 1; it does not explicitly disclose “a decision step of deciding a target line width used to decide the illuminance and the irradiation time in accordance with the target line width distribution after a postprocessing step for the pattern formed in the curing step.”
However, as modified Goto further discloses use of a second empirical method involving a select drop pattern different than the initial drop pattern, see at least Khusnatdinov [0097], [0105]. It is considered the processing and time difference between the first and second drop pattern is representative of a post-processing of the first drop pattern. And where one would have a decision step of deciding a target line width used to decide the illuminance and the irradiation time in accordance with the target line width distribution after a postprocessing step for the pattern formed in the curing step. This being done at part of routine experimentation to form an adjusted drop pattern useful for correcting undesirable displacement of drops during the first imprinting steps, see at least Khusnatdinov [0076].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto’s method to include a decision step as claimed and reasonably suggested by modified Goto to form a method having a correction scheme using an adjusted drop pattern.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2017/0200639 A1 – of record), in view of Khusnatdinov (US 2020/0401040 A1 – of record), in view of Park et al. (KR 101205826 B1 – of record), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stachowiak et al. (US 2017/0282440 A1 – of record).
Regarding claims 9-14, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose a removal step.
Stachowiak discloses a nanoimprinting method to remove uncured pretreatment composition from an imprinted nanoimprint lithography substrate. The method for removing the uncured portion of the pretreatment coating from the nanoimprint lithography substrate is performed post imprinting – (construed as after separation), see at least [0105] – (construed as a removal step of removing an unpolymerized polymerizable compound after the separation step). Where the removal step post imprint encompasses rinsing the nanoimprint lithography substrate with an organic rinsing liquid to wash away an uncured portion of the pretreatment coating, see [0105] – (construed as a rinse step of exposing the cured film after the separation step to an organic solvent); heating the nanoimprint lithography substrate at an elevated temperature to evaporate the uncured pretreatment composition, see [0105] – (construed as a baking step of heating the substrate after the separation step); reducing a pressure surrounding the nanoimprint lithography substrates to a pressure below atmospheric pressure, see [0024] – (construed as a pressure reduction step of placing the substrate in a reduced pressure environment) to include for a predetermined time, see FIG. 21. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the pressure that the reduced pressure environment is an environment of not less than 0.0001 atm and not more than 0.9 atm to modify as claimed since Stachowiak discloses the reduced pressure is below atmospheric pressure. And further where the removal under vacuum happens at a time less than 1 hour, see FIG. 21 – (construed as the predetermined time is a time of not less than 1 sec and not more than 1 hr).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto’s method to include a removal step of removing an unpolymerized polymerizable compound after the separation step as taught by Stachowiak to provide a means for reducing defects caused by uncured material as suggested by Stachowiak, see at least [0103] – [0104]. Concerning the claimed ranges: It has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2017/0200639 A1 – of record), in view of Khusnatdinov (US 2020/0401040 A1 – of record), in view of Park et al. (KR 101205826 B1 – of record), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Amemiya (US 4,935,947).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose the claimed pattern forming steps.
Amemiya discloses a method of transferring a pattern of a mask onto a wafer. The method to include a technique of “for particular conditions such as a desired line width of a resist pattern, the property of a mask used, the characteristics of a resist material used, etc., are determined and the exposure operation is controlled automatically in accordance with the determined exposure conditions”, see Col 2 lines 34-40. And further where “when particular conditions such as, for example, a desired line width of a resist pattern and characteristics of a mask and a resist material to be used are specified as "set values", optimum values concerning the other exposure conditions that should be coordinated with the specified conditions are determined by calculations, and then the "exposure" is executed in accordance with the thus specified and determined conditions”, see Col 15 lines 14-24. It being considered that would readily adopt Amemiya’s technique as doing so allows for “precise control of the line width of the resist pattern”, see Col 17 lines 38-40.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Goto’s method to include steps of “obtaining, before irradiating the curable composition, the target line width of the pattern, wherein the curable composition is irradiated with the light in accordance with the illuminance and the irradiation time decided based on the obtained target line width of the pattern” and “deciding, before the curing step and for each of the plurality of regions, the target line width of the pattern, wherein, in the curing step, the curable composition in each of the plurality of regions is irradiated with light in accordance with the illuminance and the irradiation time decided based on the target line width decided for each of the plurality of regions” as reasonably suggested by Amemiya to provide a means for assuring precise control of the line width.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Here, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action relies on Park for the broad proposition that irradiation-related conditions such as time, temperature, and heating time can change a pattern line width. This teaching, however, is not a teaching of region-by-region exposure parameter selection within a single field, nor is it a teaching of deciding illuminance and irradiation time based on a target line width. At best, Park teaches a general dimensional adjustment concept. Park's generic teaching that irradiation conditions may affect dimensions does not disclose or even remotely suggest the claimed spatially varying, target-CD-driven curing protocol.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a technique that would improve a similar device in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person' s skill. While evaluating obviousness, one must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions; see KSR Int. v. Teleflex 550 US (2007).
To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the way a patent claims, it will often be necessary to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; to the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and to the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art; ibid.
The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the challenged claimed specific subject matter, for a court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed; ibid. Note also that “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”); Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Further, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, modifying Goto's method for forming a porous body having a pattern to include applying and curing a photocurable composition by irradiating the photocurable composition with light; to further comprise a technique of curing a material with irradiation and a technique of changing a line width of the pattern by controlling the time, temperature, heating time, etc. of the irradiation source, as taught by Park, reasonably suggests the claimed feature of: in the curing step, the curable composition is irradiated with light in accordance with an illuminance and an irradiation time decided based on a target line width of the pattern. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such an illumination technique as this allows for forming specific patterns according to physical characteristics like line widths.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: Furthermore, Khusnatdinov does not cure this deficiency. Although Khusnatdinov discusses imprinting on a "field by field basis" and dividing the substrate into multiple imprint fields (see, e.g., cited paragraphs [0061] & [0068]), this teaching concerns separate shot areas and drop-pattern generation, not plural subregions within a field receiving independently selected curing conditions.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees: As discussed above, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, modifying Goto's method for forming a porous body having a pattern to include applying and curing a photocurable composition on a substrate by irradiating the photocurable composition’ substrate with light; to further comprise a technique of using a drop pattern forming method for forming a drop pattern on a substrate. Wherein it is useful to deposit a plurality of drops of formable material onto a substrate which is then imprinted in a field by field basis. The field being dividable into a plurality of imprint fields, as taught by Khusnatdinov. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such a drop scheme to coat its substrate as this allows for ejecting the formable material (i.e. curable composition containing a polymerizable compound) in select fields on the substrate in part or whole, reasonably suggests the claimed feature of: having a field of a substrate, wherein the field includes a plurality of regions.
The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights