CTNF 18/797,608 CTNF 101755 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation " the concave-convex pattern of the mold " in the paragraph beginning “a thickness of a residual film sandwiched between the substrate and a most projecting portion...” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites that “the curable composition (A) contains at least a solvent (d)” and later recites “the solvent.” However, it is unclear whether the later-recited “the solvent” refers to the previously recited “solvent (d)” or a different solvent. Claim 3 further recites that “in a state in which the solvent is excluded, the curable composition (A) has a viscosity of not less than 30 mPa·s and not more than 10,000 mPa·s at 23°C.” However, because claim 3 requires the curable composition (A) to contain solvent (d), it is unclear whether the claimed viscosity is a property of the curable composition (A), a property of the non-solvent components of the curable composition (A), or a property measured after removing the solvent (d). Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are unclear. Although claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above, for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted as requiring the curable composition (A) to contain solvent (d), and further requiring the non-solvent components of the curable composition (A), when evaluated in a state in which the solvent (d) is excluded, to have a viscosity of not less than 30 mPa·s and not more than 10,000 mPa·s at 23°C. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “letting N be the number of all atoms in a molecule, NC be the number of carbon atoms in the molecule, and NO be the number of oxygen atoms in the molecule, an Ohnishi Parameter (OP) that is a molar fraction weighted average value of an N/(NC - NO) value of the molecule of each of polymerizable compounds (a) that may include a plurality of types is not less than 2.00 and not more than 3.00.” However, claim 5 does not clearly recite what component or material is required to have the Ohnishi Parameter (OP) of not less than 2.00 and not more than 3.00. Specifically, claim 5 appears to define how the Ohnishi Parameter is calculated, but does not clearly recite whether the claimed OP range applies to the curable composition (A), the polymerizable compound (a), each polymerizable compound (a) individually, or a molar-fraction-weighted average of a plurality of polymerizable compounds (a). Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 5 are unclear. Although claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above, for purposes of examination and to advance prosecution, claim 5 is interpreted as requiring the polymerizable compound(s) (a) of the curable composition (A) to have an Ohnishi Parameter (OP), calculated as a molar-fraction-weighted average when a plurality of polymerizable compounds (a) are present, of not less than 2.00 and not more than 3.00. Claims 2-8 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites “a step of processing the substrate on which the pattern is formed in the step.” However, claim 9 recites multiple steps, including a step of forming a pattern and a step of processing the substrate, and the pattern forming method defined in claim 1 also includes multiple steps. Therefore, the phrase “the step” lacks clear antecedent basis or otherwise has an unclear referent. It is unclear which step is being referred to by “the step,” and therefore the metes and bounds of claim 9 are unclear. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-20-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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. (JP 2009/038085 A) in view of Yonezawa et al. (US 2017/0351172 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Terasaki teaches a pattern forming method comprising an arranging step of arranging, on a substrate, a curable composition (forming resin layer 102 on substrate 101 by imprinting the pattern of mold 103, wherein either optical imprinting or thermal imprinting may be used; paragraph [0014]; also describing a photocurable resin layer on a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer; paragraph [0003]). Terasaki teaches a contact step of, after the arranging step, bringing the curable composition on the substrate into contact with a mold having unevenness (placing a workpiece having a photocurable resin layer on a substrate in/with a mold on which a desired uneven pattern is formed, filling the space between the two, and transferring the pattern to the resin layer; paragraph [0003]). Terasaki also teaches a curing step of, after the contact step, curing the curable composition to form a cured film (curing the resin by irradiating it with ultraviolet light in optical imprinting, or cooling the thermoplastic resin to harden it in thermal imprinting; paragraph [0003]). Terasaki continue to teach a thickness of a residual film sandwiched between the substrate and a most projecting portion of the concave-convex pattern of the mold is not less than 50 nm (teaching that it is desirable to control the residual film to a value of at least 90 nm or greater; paragraph [0008]). Terasaki teaches a forming step of forming an inversion layer on unevenness transferred from the mold onto the cured film (forming inversion layer 104 on resin layer 102, wherein the pattern on resin layer 102 is embedded by inversion layer 104; paragraph [0014]). Terasaki also teaches a removing step of, in a state in which the inversion layer is buried in a concave portion of the unevenness formed on the cured film, removing an upper layer portion of the inversion layer such that a top surface of a convex portion of the unevenness formed on the cured film is exposed (removing inversion layer 104 until the upper surface of resin layer 102 is exposed, thereby forming pattern 105 in which inversion layer 104 remains only in the recesses of resin layer 102; paragraph [0014]). Terasaki further teaches an etching step of, using the inversion layer buried in the concave portion as a mask, etching the cured film up to a surface of the substrate to form an inverted pattern (etching resin layer 102 using embedded inversion layer 105 as a mask to form inverted pattern 106, and after the nth inversion process, all remaining resin layer 102 is removed and the surface of substrate 101 is exposed; paragraph [0014]). Terasaki does not expressly teach the curable composition (A) containing at least a polymerizable compound (a), does not expressly teach a separation step of, after the curing step, separating the curable composition (A) and the mold, and does not expressly teach a height difference of the unevenness of the mold is not more than the thickness of the residual film. Yonezawa teaches the curable composition (A) containing at least a polymerizable compound (a) (teaching a photocurable composition for imprint containing component (A), a polymerizable compound, and component (B), a photopolymerization initiator; paragraphs [0019]-[0021]; further teaching that component (A) may contain one kind or two or more kinds of polymerizable compounds; paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Yonezawa teaches a separation step of, after the curing step, separating the curable composition (A) and the mold (teaching a releasing step of releasing the photocured film and the mold from each other after the light irradiation/curing step; paragraphs [0096]-[0101], [0133]-[0135]). Yonezawa teaches a height difference of the unevenness of the mold is not more than the thickness of the residual film (teaching that the fine pattern on the surface of mold 104 suitably has a pattern height of 4 nm or more and 200 nm or less, which includes mold pattern heights not more than Terasaki’s residual film thickness of at least 90 nm, such as pattern heights from 4 nm to 90 nm; paragraph [0113]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern forming method of Terasaki to use Yonezawa’s photocurable composition for imprint containing a polymerizable compound, Yonezawa’s releasing step, and a mold pattern height from Yonezawa’s suitable range that is not more than Terasaki’s residual film thickness because Yonezawa teaches a known optical nanoimprint process for forming a photocured film pattern on a substrate, including a photocurable imprint composition containing a polymerizable compound, release of the photocured film and mold after curing, and suitable mold pattern heights including values below 90 nm. Yonezawa further teaches a photocurable composition for imprint that can form a pattern having small thermal expansion during dry etching and having excellent filling properties in an optical imprint method (paragraphs [0005]-[0009]). Terasaki likewise forms a resin pattern on a substrate by imprinting, desirably controls the residual film to at least 90 nm or greater, and uses the resulting resin pattern in an inversion-layer etching process. Therefore, applying Yonezawa’s known photocurable imprint composition, mold release step, and workable mold pattern height to Terasaki’s imprint-based inversion patterning method would have predictably formed a photocured resin pattern having a mold height compatible with Terasaki’s residual film thickness, improved filling properties for optical imprinting, and a pattern suitable for Terasaki’s subsequent inversion-layer etching process. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D), and MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Modified Terasaki does not teach wherein in the arranging step, a plurality of droplets of the curable composition (A) are discretely arranged on the substrate using an inkjet method. However, Yonezawa further teaches wherein in the arranging step, a plurality of droplets of the curable composition (A) are discretely arranged on the substrate using an inkjet method (Yonezawa teaches that, as a method for arranging the photocurable composition for imprint on the substrate to be processed, an ink jet method can be used and that, in the optical imprint method, the ink jet method is particularly suitable; paragraph [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Yonezawa’s ink jet method in the modified method of Terasaki because Yonezawa teaches ink jet arrangement as a known and particularly suitable method for arranging photocurable imprint composition on a substrate in optical imprinting. Therefore, applying Yonezawa’s known ink jet arranging method to Terasaki’s imprint-based pattern forming method would have predictably arranged the photocurable composition on the substrate for subsequent mold contact and curing. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D). Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The modified method of Terasaki does not expressly teach wherein the curable composition (A) contains at least a solvent (d), and a spin coating method is used in the arranging step. Yonezawa teaches wherein the curable composition (A) contains at least a solvent (d), and a spin coating method is used in the arranging step (teaching that the photocurable composition for nanoimprint may contain additive components including a solvent, and further teaching that, as a method for arranging the photocurable composition for imprint on the substrate to be processed, a spin coating method can be used; paragraphs [0050], [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa to use Yonezawa’s solvent-containing photocurable composition and spin coating arranging method because Yonezawa teaches solvent as a known optional additive component for photocurable nanoimprint compositions and spin coating as a known method for arranging photocurable imprint composition on a substrate. Therefore, applying Yonezawa’s known solvent-containing composition and spin coating method to Terasaki’s imprint-based pattern forming method would have predictably formed a photocurable composition layer on the substrate for subsequent imprinting. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D). Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The modified method of Terasaki does not expressly teach wherein letting N be the number of all atoms in a molecule, NC be the number of carbon atoms in the molecule, and NO be the number of oxygen atoms in the molecule, an Ohnishi Parameter (OP) that is a molar fraction weighted average value of an N/(NC - NO) value of the molecule of each of polymerizable compounds (a) that may include a plurality of types is not less than 2.00 and not more than 3.00. Yonezawa teaches wherein letting N be the number of all atoms in a molecule, NC be the number of carbon atoms in the molecule, and NO be the number of oxygen atoms in the molecule, an Ohnishi Parameter (OP) that is a molar fraction weighted average value of an N/(NC - NO) value of the molecule of each of polymerizable compounds (a) that may include a plurality of types is not less than 2.00 and not more than 3.00 (teaching that N/(NC-NO) is commonly referred to as an Ohnishi Parameter, teaching that when component (A) contains two or more kinds of polymerizable compounds the Ohnishi Parameter is calculated as the mole-fraction-weighted average value, teaching that the Ohnishi Parameter of component (A) is suitably 3.2 or less, and disclosing Example 6 having an OP of 2.65 and Example 7 having an OP of 2.80, which fall within the claimed range; paragraphs [0035]-[0040], [0186]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa to select an Ohnishi Parameter within the claimed range because Yonezawa teaches the Ohnishi Parameter of component (A) as a property related to dry etching resistance of the photocurable imprint composition, teaches that an OP of 3.2 or less provides good dry etching resistance, and discloses examples within the claimed range. Therefore, selecting an OP within the claimed range would have been a routine selection of a workable value from Yonezawa’s disclosed suitable OP values to obtain predictable dry etching resistance. See MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 6, modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Modified Terasaki further teaches wherein a vapor pressure of each of the polymerizable compounds (a), which may include a plurality of types, at 80°C is not more than 0.001 mmHg (Yonezawa teaches 2-phenylphenoxyethyl(meth)acrylate as an example of a monofunctional (meth)acrylic compound usable as the polymerizable compound; paragraph [0030]; Yonezawa further teaches that (meth)acrylate refers to acrylate or methacrylate; paragraph [0034]; the instant specification identifies 2-phenylphenoxyethyl acrylate as having a vapor pressure at 80°C of 0.0006 mmHg, which is not more than 0.001 mmHg). Since Yonezawa teaches the same polymerizable compound identified in the instant specification as having the claimed vapor-pressure property, the vapor pressure is an inherent property of the selected compound (paragraph [0045]). Where the prior art and claimed compositions are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, the claimed property is reasonably expected to be the same. See MPEP § 2112.01. Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The modified method of Terasaki does not expressly teach wherein a processing target layer on an uppermost layer of the substrate is an insulating film containing at least silicon atoms. Yonezawa teaches wherein a processing target layer on an uppermost layer of the substrate is an insulating film containing at least silicon atoms (teaching that the substrate to be processed may be selected from substrates for semiconductor devices, including silicon oxide and silicon nitride, which are insulating films containing silicon atoms; paragraph [0108]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa to use a silicon oxide or silicon nitride processing target layer because Yonezawa teaches silicon oxide and silicon nitride as known substrate materials for semiconductor devices in nanoimprint processing. Therefore, using such known silicon-containing insulating materials in Terasaki’s imprint-based pattern forming method would have predictably provided a semiconductor-device processing target suitable for pattern transfer and etching. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D). Regarding claim 9 , Terasaki teaches an article manufacturing method comprising a step of forming a pattern of a curable composition on a substrate using a pattern forming method defined in claim 1 (teaching a pattern forming method including forming resin layer 102 on substrate 101 by imprinting the pattern of mold 103, forming inversion layer 104 on resin layer 102, removing inversion layer 104 until the upper surface of resin layer 102 is exposed, etching resin layer 102 using embedded inversion layer 105 as a mask, and after the nth inversion process, removing all remaining resin layer 102 such that the surface of substrate 101 is exposed; paragraph [0014]). Terasaki further teaches a step of processing the substrate on which the pattern is formed, wherein an article is manufactured from the processed substrate (teaching that the resin layer can be used as a mask layer for etching or other processes to form a pattern on the substrate, and further teaching etching resin layer 102 until the surface of substrate 101 is exposed; paragraphs [0003], [0014]). Terasaki does not expressly teach, for the pattern forming method defined in claim 1, the curable composition (A) containing at least a polymerizable compound (a), does not expressly teach a separation step of, after the curing step, separating the curable composition (A) and the mold, and does not expressly teach a height difference of the unevenness of the mold is not more than the thickness of the residual film. Yonezawa teaches the curable composition (A) containing at least a polymerizable compound (a) (teaching a photocurable composition for imprint containing component (A), a polymerizable compound, and component (B), a photopolymerization initiator; paragraphs [0019]-[0021]; further teaching that component (A) may contain one kind or two or more kinds of polymerizable compounds; paragraphs [0025]-[0026]). Yonezawa teaches a separation step of, after the curing step, separating the curable composition (A) and the mold (teaching a releasing step of releasing the photocured film and the mold from each other after the light irradiation/curing step; paragraphs [0096]-[0101], [0133]-[0135]). Yonezawa teaches a height difference of the unevenness of the mold is not more than the thickness of the residual film (teaching that the fine pattern on the surface of mold 104 suitably has a pattern height of 4 nm or more and 200 nm or less, which includes mold pattern heights not more than Terasaki’s residual film thickness of at least 90 nm, such as pattern heights from 4 nm to 90 nm; paragraph [0113]). Yonezawa further teaches that the photocurable composition for imprint is suitable for forming a nano-order pattern of a photocured film on a semiconductor substrate and is suitable for dry etching the photocured film to process the base material (paragraph [0022]). Yonezawa further teaches that, by the manufacturing steps, a photocured film having a desired irregular pattern shape can be obtained and used as an optical member having the substrate and the photocured film arranged on the substrate (paragraph [0136]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article manufacturing method of Terasaki to use Yonezawa’s photocurable composition for imprint containing a polymerizable compound, Yonezawa’s releasing step, and a mold pattern height from Yonezawa’s suitable range that is not more than Terasaki’s residual film thickness because Yonezawa teaches a known optical nanoimprint process for forming a photocured film pattern on a substrate, including a photocurable imprint composition containing a polymerizable compound, release of the photocured film and mold after curing, and suitable mold pattern heights including values below 90 nm. Yonezawa further teaches a photocurable composition for imprint that can form a pattern having small thermal expansion during dry etching and having excellent filling properties in an optical imprint method (paragraphs [0005]-[0009]). Terasaki likewise forms a resin pattern on a substrate by imprinting, desirably controls the residual film to at least 90 nm or greater, and uses the resulting resin pattern in an inversion-layer etching process for processing a substrate. Therefore, applying Yonezawa’s known photocurable imprint composition, mold release step, and workable mold pattern height to Terasaki’s imprint-based article manufacturing method would have predictably formed a photocured resin pattern having a mold height compatible with Terasaki’s residual film thickness, improved filling properties for optical imprinting, and a pattern suitable for Terasaki’s subsequent inversion-layer etching/substrate-processing steps. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D), and MPEP § 2144.05 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. in view of Yonezawa et al ., as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chou et al. (US 2008/0277826 A1) . Regarding claim 3, modified method of Terasaki teaches all limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Yonezawa further teaches the curable composition (A) contains at least a solvent (d), and the polymerizable compound (a) contains at least a compound having one of an aromatic structure, an aromatic heterocyclic structure, and an alicyclic structure (teaching that the photocurable composition for nanoimprint may contain a solvent as an additive component; paragraph [0050]; teaching phenoxyethyl(meth)acrylate and 2-phenylphenoxyethyl(meth)acrylate, which have aromatic structures, and isononyl(meth)acrylate, adamantyl(meth)acrylate, bornyl(meth)acrylate, tricyclodecanyl(meth)acrylate, dicyclopentanyl(meth)acrylate, and cyclohexyl(meth)acrylate, which have alicyclic structures; paragraph [0030]). The modified method of Terasaki does not expressly teach the curable composition (A) has a viscosity of not less than 2 mPa·s and not more than 60 mPa·s at 23°C, in a state in which the solvent is excluded, the curable composition (A) has a viscosity of not less than 30 mPa·s and not more than 10,000 mPa·s at 23°C, and a content of the solvent with respect to a whole of the curable composition (A) is not less than 70 vol% and not more than 95 vol%. Chou teaches the curable composition (A) has a viscosity of not less than 2 mPa·s and not more than 60 mPa·s at 23°C and, in a state in which the solvent is excluded, the curable composition (A) has a viscosity of not less than 30 mPa·s and not more than 10,000 mPa·s at 23°C (teaching nanoimprint resist materials applied as thin films from a resist solution, wherein the dry resist material without any solvent has a viscosity of 20 cps to 100,000 cps, preferably 50 cps to 500 cps, which overlaps the claimed solvent-excluded viscosity range; paragraph [0046]; teaching resist material applied as discrete droplets having a viscosity of 1 cps to 50 cps, preferably 1 cps to 10 cps, which overlaps the claimed viscosity range; paragraph [0046]). Chou further teaches a high-solvent nanoimprint resist solution (teaching that the polymeric composition can be spin-coated from a 5-10 weight percent solution in a suitable solvent, such as propyleneglycol methyl ether acetate, on a silicon wafer to form a uniform thin nanoimprint resist film; paragraph [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the photocurable imprint composition used in the modified method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa to have Chou’s viscosity and solvent conditions because Chou teaches nanoimprint resist compositions formulated as solvent-containing solutions or discrete liquid droplets with viscosities selected for thin-film coating, droplet dispensing, imprinting, and photocuring by a nanomold. Yonezawa likewise teaches that viscosity affects filling of the photocurable composition into concave portions of the mold and that suitable viscosity improves productivity and reduces pattern defects due to poor filling. Therefore, adjusting the solvent content and viscosity of the photocurable imprint composition to obtain workable coating, dispensing, mold-filling, and curing properties would have been routine optimization of result-effective variables for nanoimprint processing. See MPEP § 2144.05 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terasaki et al. in view of Yonezawa et al ., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aritsuka et al. (JP 2015/139936 A) . Regarding claim 8, modified method of Terasaki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The modified method of Terasaki does not expressly teach further comprising a waiting step of, after the arranging step, waiting for a predetermined time before a start of the contact step. Aritsuka teaches further comprising a waiting step of, after the arranging step, waiting for a predetermined time before a start of the contact step (teaching that, after forming coating film 3 by applying a coating agent containing an inorganic material and a solvent onto substrate 1, coating film 3 is left to wait for a predetermined time to reduce the amount of solvent contained in coating film 3 by a predetermined amount; paragraph [0020]; teaching that the mold is not pressed at time t0, the process is held until time t1, and then the mold is brought into contact with the coated film; paragraph [0025]; teaching an example in which the coated film was left to stand at room temperature and, after approximately 120 seconds, a PDMS mold was placed on the coated film; paragraph [0032]). Aritsuka further teaches that reducing the amount of solvent contained in the coating film before contact with the mold shortens the time required to reduce solvent during room-temperature imprinting (paragraphs [0007]-[0008]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa to include Aritsuka’s waiting step because Aritsuka teaches a known imprinting process in which the coating film is left to wait after formation and before mold contact so that the amount of solvent contained in the coating film is reduced before imprinting. Applying Aritsuka’s known waiting step to the modified imprint method of Terasaki in view of Yonezawa would have predictably allowed solvent reduction and adjustment of the coating film condition before mold contact, thereby improving control of the imprinting process and reducing the time required for solvent reduction during room-temperature imprinting. See MPEP § 2141, rationale III(D). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM. 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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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. /JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 9 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 10 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 11 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 12 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 13 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 14 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 15 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 16 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 17 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 18 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 19 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 20 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 21 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 22 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/797,608 Page 23 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights