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 .
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-3, 8-14 drawn to a pattern forming method to include a polymerizable compound arranged on a field of a substrate, classified in B29C59/022.
II. Claims 4-6, drawn to a pattern forming method to include a polymerizable compound arranged on a substrate, classified in B29C59/026.
III. Claim 7, a pattern forming method to include a polymerizable compound arranged on a substrate, classified in G03F7/004.
IV. Claim 15, drawn to an article manufacturing method to include a step of obtaining an article by processing the substrate with a formed pattern, classified in G03F7/0005.
V. Claim 16, drawn to an article manufacturing method to include a step of obtaining an article by processing the substrate with a formed pattern, classified in G03F7/0005.
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 have acquired separate statuses in the art in view of their different statutory categories; the inventions have acquired separate statuses in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries.
During a telephone conversation with Richard Schachner on 02/12/2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3, 8-14. Applicant's election of Group I is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4-7, 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025, 04/23/2025 and 07/17/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Tables 2 and 3 depict a measure of (√t)·t. However, the recited data in the tables does not support a measure of (√t)·t. The examiner considers the (√t)·t to be a typo since in paragraph [0115], a conversion rate is approximated by (√I)·t and accounting for rounding the data in Tables 2 and 3 support the use of (√I)·t.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the target line width distribution" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner suggests amending the claim to read “a target line width distribution”.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto et al. (US 2017/0200639 A1), in view of Khusnatdinov (US 2020/0401040 A1), in view of Park et al. (KR 101205826 B1).
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), in view of Khusnatdinov (US 2020/0401040 A1), in view of Park et al. (KR 101205826 B1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Stachowiak et al. (US 2017/0282440 A1).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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-2:00pm
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Wilson can be reached on 5712703882. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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/Examiner, Art Unit 1749