CTNF 18/795,337 CTNF 93391 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2015/0368433; made of record in the IDS filed 08/06/2024) in view of Sreenivasan et al. (US 2004/0065252) . As to claim 1 : Kitagawa discloses the claimed film forming method ( Kitagawa at [0141], [0142]) comprising: an arranging step of arranging a curable composition on a base material ( Kitagawa at [0152]); a contact step of bringing the curable composition into contact with a film forming region of a mold after the arranging step ( Kitagawa at [0155], [0156], [0157], [0159]); a curing step of curing the curable composition after the contact step ( Kitagawa at [0169], [0170], [0171], [0172]); and a separation step of separating the curable composition and the mold after the curing step ( Kitagawa at [0173], [0174]), wherein in the contact step, a gas that fills a space between the base material and the mold exists ( Kitagawa at [0160]-[0168]), a solubility coefficient of the gas to the curable composition is not less than 0.5 kg/m 3 ⋅ atm and not more than 10 kg/m 3 ⋅ atm ( Kitagawa at [0160]-[0168]), and an average liquid film thickness is not less than 70 nm ( Kitagawa at [0154], [0223]). Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed average liquid film thickness that is a value obtained by dividing a volume of the curable composition by an area of the film forming region. However, Sreenivasan teaches a method of forming layers on a substrate to facilitate fabrication of high-resolution patterning features related to imprint lithography ( Sreenivasan at [0001]). Sreenivasan further teaches the layer thickness t 2 being a function of the volume V and the area A such that V = At 2 , which would mean the thickness t 2 = V/A ( Sreenivasan at [0033]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the thickness t 2 = V/A as such is known in the art of imprint lithography given the discussion of Sreenivasan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As to claim 2 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa further discloses the claimed wherein the average liquid film thickness is not more than 100 μm ( Kitagawa at [0154], [0223]). As to claim 6 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa , modified by Sreenivasan , discloses the use of carbon dioxide and oxygen as gas’s used with the method ( Kitagawa at [0033], [0160]-[0168]); though, modified Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the gas contains carbon dioxide in a molar ratio of not less than 10%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the gas containing carbon dioxide in a molar ration of not less than 10%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select the gas containing carbon dioxide in a molar ration of not less than 10% to ensure the gas filled in the recesses of the fine pattern liquefies to thereby vanish bubble to achieve an excellent filling property while the gas dissolves in the curable composition or permeates the mold ( Kitagawa at [0162], [0168]). As to claim 7 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa , modified by Sreenivasan , discloses the use of carbon dioxide and oxygen as gas’s used with the method ( Kitagawa at [0033], [0160]-[0168]); though, modified Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the gas contains carbon dioxide in a molar ratio of not less than 10% and oxygen in a molar ratio of not less than 5% and not more than 90%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the gas contains carbon dioxide in a molar ratio of not less than 10% and oxygen in a molar ratio of not less than 5% and not more than 90%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select the gas contains carbon dioxide in a molar ratio of not less than 10% and oxygen in a molar ratio of not less than 5% and not more than 90% to ensure the gas filled in the recesses of the fine pattern liquefies to thereby vanish bubbles and achieve an excellent filling property ( Kitagawa at [0162]). As to claim 8 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa further discloses the claimed wherein the film forming region of the mold has a pattern, and a film to which the pattern is transferred is formed by the contact step, the curing step, and the separation step ( Kitagawa at FIG. 1B1 – FIG. 1D). As to claim 9 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa discloses the mold having a pattern of 1 nm to 10 mm in size ( Kitagawa at [0142]); though, modified Kitagawa fails to explicitly discloses the claimed wherein the mold has a flat surface, and a film having a surface conforming to the flat surface is formed by the contact step, the curing step, and the separation step. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a mold that has a flat surface, and a film having a surface conforming to the flat surface is formed by the contact step, the curing step, and the separation step, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. As to claim 10 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa further discloses the claimed wherein an uppermost layer of the base material is an insulating layer containing at least silicon atoms ( Kitagawa at [0153], [0221]). As to claim 11 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 1. Kitagawa further discloses the claimed article manufacturing method ( Kitagawa at [0150]) comprising; a step of forming a film on a substrate by a film forming method defined in claim 1 (see Kitagawa and Sreenivasan as applied in the rejection of claim 1); and a step of obtaining an article by processing the substrate on which the film is formed ( Kitagawa at [0150]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2015/0368433; made of record in the IDS filed 08/06/2024) in view of Sreenivasan et al. (US 2004/0065252) . As to claim 3 : Kitagawa discloses the claimed film forming method ( Kitagawa at [0141], [0142]) comprising: an arranging step of arranging a curable composition on a base material ( Kitagawa at [0152]); a contact step of bringing the curable composition into contact with a film forming region of a mold after the arranging step ( Kitagawa at [0155], [0156], [0157], [0159]); a curing step of curing the curable composition after the contact step ( Kitagawa at [0169], [0170]-[0172]); and a separation step of separating the curable composition and the mold after the curing step ( Kitagawa at [0173]-[0174]), wherein in the contact step, a gas that fills a space between the base material and the mold exists ( Kitagawa at [0160]-[0168]), and in a case where a solubility coefficient of the gas to the curable composition is defined as S [kg/m 3 ⋅ atm] ( Kitagawa at [0160]-[0168]), a diffusion coefficient as D [m 2 /s] ( Kitagawa at [0160]-[0168]), and an average liquid film thickness as T [nm] ( Kitagawa at [0154]). Though, Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed S ⋅ D ⋅ T is not less than 1.75 × 10 -9 , and S is not more than 10. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have S ⋅ D ⋅ T is not less than 1.75 × 10 -9 , and S is not more than 10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select S ⋅ D ⋅ T is not less than 1.75 × 10 -9 , and S is not more than 10 to ensure the gas filled in the recesses of the fine pattern liquefies to thereby vanish bubbles to achieve an excellent filling property while the gas dissolves in the curable composition or permeates the mold ( Kitagawa at [0162], [0168]). Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed average liquid film thickness is a value obtained by dividing a volume of the curable composition by an area of the film forming region. However, Sreenivasan teaches a method of forming layers on a substrate to facilitate fabrication of high-resolution patterning features related to imprint lithography ( Sreenivasan at [0001]). Sreenivasan further teaches the layer thickness t 2 being a function of the volume V and the area A such that V = At 2 , which would mean the thickness t 2 = V/A ( Sreenivasan at [0033]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the thickness t 2 = V/A as such is known in the art of imprint lithography given the discussion of Sreenivasan above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As to claim 4 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 3. Kitagawa , modified by Sreenivasan , discloses the use of carbon dioxide and oxygen as gas’s used with the method ( Kitagawa at [0033], [0160]-[0168]); though, modified Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein S is not less than 0.5. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have S is not less than 0.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select S is not less than 0.5 to ensure the gas filled in the recesses of the fine pattern liquefies to thereby vanish bubbles to achieve an excellent filling property while the gas dissolves in the curable composition or permeates the mold ( Kitagawa at [0162], [0168]). As to claim 5 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 3. Kitagawa , modified by Sreenivasan , discloses the use of carbon dioxide and oxygen as gas’s used with the method ( Kitagawa at [0033], [0160]-[0168]); though, modified Kitagawa fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein D is not less than 5 × 10 -12 and not more than 1 × 10 -8 . However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have D is not less than 5 × 10 -12 and not more than 1 × 10 -8 , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select D is not less than 5 × 10 -12 and not more than 1 × 10 -8 to ensure the gas filled in the recesses of the fine pattern liquefies to thereby vanish bubbles to achieve an excellent filling property while the gas dissolves in the curable composition or permeates the mold ( Kitagawa at [0162], [0168]). As to claim 12 : Kitagawa and Sreenivasan disclose the method of claim 3. Kitagawa further discloses the claimed article manufacturing method ( Kitagawa at [0150]) comprising; a step of forming a film on a substrate by a film forming method defined in claim 3 (see Kitagawa and Sreenivasan as applied in the rejection of claim 3); and a step of obtaining an article by processing the substrate on which the film is formed ( Kitagawa at [0150]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST. 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, Galen H. Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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. /BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 2 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 3 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 4 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 5 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 6 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 7 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 8 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 9 Art Unit: 1743 Application/Control Number: 18/795,337 Page 10 Art Unit: 1743
Prosecution Insights