CTNF 18/828,164 CTNF 93907 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. Election/Restrictions 08-06 AIA Claim s 8-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 2, 2026 . Response to Amendment Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 15-16 and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 8-14 have been withdrawn. 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 7 and 20 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. Claims 7 and 20 recite, “wherein a viscosity of the first layer is higher than a viscosity of the second layer in forming the second layer.” It is unclear what the phrase “in forming the second layer” is supposed to mean. Perhaps the limitation is meant to refer to the viscosity of the second layer prior to applying the first light to cure the first layer and the second layer, and it is examined on this basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) . Regarding claim 1, Yoneda discloses a pattern forming method (abstract), comprising: forming a first layer on an object (particle removing film 12, [0043-44], Fig. 1A), the first layer containing a first photocurable composition (BARC film will be susceptible to photocuring to some extent, [0044-49]); forming a second layer on the first layer (light curable resin 13, [0045-46], Fig. 1B), the second layer containing a second photocurable composition different in composition from the first photocurable composition ([0043-46]); pressing a first template having a surface with a pattern against the second layer to bring the pattern into contact with a foreign matter inside or on a surface of the second layer ([0047-48], Figs. 1C-D), thereby moving at least part of the foreign matter into the first layer (particle 15 taken into particle removing film 12, [0050], Figs. 1D-E); and applying a first light to the first layer and the second layer through the first template to cure the first layer and the second layer (curing with UV light, [0048-49], Fig. 1D). Regarding claim 3, Yoneda discloses wherein the second layer is formed by supplying the second photocurable composition onto the object using a spin coating method or an ink-jet method ([0090]) . 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Resnick (US 2010/0078846) . Regarding claim 2, Yoneda discloses wherein the first layer is formed by supplying the first photocurable composition onto the object using a coating method (coated on the wafer, [0045]). Yoneda teaches a method substantially as claimed. Yoneda does not disclose the coating method being a spin coating method or an ink-jet method. However, in the same field of endeavor of coating a substrate so as to remove a particle in the context of imprint lithography ([0037-38], abstract), Resnick teaches wherein the first layer is formed by supplying the first photocurable composition onto the object using a spin coating method or an ink-jet method ([0037-38]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoneda to apply particle removing film 12 by spin coating because [0045] of Yoneda teaches that the particle removing film 12 is coated onto the wafer and [0038] of Resnick teaches that spin coating is one of multiple known ways for so coating a wafer in the same technical context of a film for removing a foreign object (Resnick [0037], abstract). Regarding claim 6, Yoneda discloses wherein: the foreign matter is a particle (particle 15, [0047], Figs. 1C-E). Yoneda teaches a method substantially as claimed. Yoneda is silent as to relative dimensions between a particle and the thickness of particle removing film 12. However, in the same field of endeavor of coating a substrate so as to remove a particle in the context of imprint lithography ([0037-38], abstract), Resnick teaches a thickness of the first layer is larger than a maximum particle size of the particle ([0035]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoneda for particle removing film 12 to be larger than a maximum particle size of the particle because Yoneda is silent as to proportions and [0035] of Resnick teaches such a thickness for a film that is used for removing a particle in the same technical context . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Traub (US 2024/0418928) . Regarding claim 5, Yoneda teaches a method substantially as claimed. Yoneda is silent as to the composition of light curable resin 13. Yoneda does not disclose wherein the second photocurable composition contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of silicon, aluminum, boron, phosphorus, sulfur, arsenic, and iron. However, in the same field of endeavor of resist for imprint lithography ([0128-57]), Traub teaches wherein the second photocurable composition contains at least one element selected from the group consisting of silicon, aluminum, boron, phosphorus, sulfur, arsenic, and iron (contains Sulfur, [0055] [0057]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yoneda for the composition of light curable resin 13 to contain Sulfur because [0090] teaches an inkjet type coating method for this UV imprint lithography ([0006-07]) and [0055] of Traub teaches the inclusion of Sulfur for a jettable imprintable resist for imprint lithography . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) . Regarding claim 7, Yoneda teaches wherein a viscosity of the first layer is higher than a viscosity of the second layer in forming the second layer (silence on relative viscosity indicates an overlapping range, relative viscosity as claimed is therefore obvious, see MPEP 2144.05(I)) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4 recites, “wherein the first photocurable composition contains an ultraviolet curable organic material.” Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) teaches the first photocurable composition as a BARC film. While this film will be curable to some extent, Yoneda lacks a teaching that it is an ultraviolet curable organic material. The available prior art lacks a persuasive rationale to remedy this deficiency of Yoneda. While other references may teach a first photocurable composition containing an ultraviolet curable organic material, such as resist layer 66 of Resnick, this approach is not taught by the prior art to have the two layers with insertion of the particle into the lower layer as in Yoneda or as required by parent claim 1. 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 15-19 are allowed. Claim 15 recites, “A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a first cured layer and a second cured layer on a substrate by a first pattern forming method; and etching the substrate using the first cured layer and the second cured layer to partially remove the substrate, the first pattern forming method comprising: forming a first layer on the substrate, the first layer containing a first photocurable composition; forming a second layer on the first layer, the second layer containing a second photocurable composition different in composition from the first photocurable composition; pressing a first template having a surface with a pattern against the second layer to bring the pattern into contact with a foreign matter inside or on a surface of the second layer, thereby moving at least part of the foreign matter into the first layer; and applying a first light to the first layer and the second layer through the first template to cure the first layer and the second layer.” Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) teaches a method of particle removal that meets a number of the above limitations. However, Yoneda’s method is used to remove particles, then a process would be followed to apply layers, cure, then etch. Layers 12 and 13 of Yoneda are not etched after curing, but are instead removed. Accordingly, claim 15’s limitation, etching the substrate using the first cured layer and the second cured layer to partially remove the substrate, is not taught or disclosed by Yoneda. References such as Aoki (US 20210055649), Kurosawa (US 2012/0321797) , and Tokue (US 2010/0072647; US 8,221,827) teach a process wherein a material is deposited around and on foreign substances, the resist goes everywhere else and is imprinted and cured, then etching follows. Such processes do not include the two-layer approach recited by applicant with the for foreign substance pushed into the lower layer. Accordingly, the available prior art does not teach or suggest each and every element of claims 15-20. 07-43-01 AIA Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yoneda (US 8,202,463) teaches subject matter similar to Yoneda (US 2009/0267267) , cited above. Kurosawa (US 9,128,371) teaches subject matter similar to Kurosawa (US 2012/0321797) , cited above. Traub (US 12,222,537) teaches subject matter similar to Traub (US 2024/0418928) , cited above . References such as Verschuuren (US 2019/0283280) , Koike (US 2015/0158268) , and Lundvall (US 2015/0360453) teach a lower viscosity for a higher layer either for a thinner layer for spin coating or for better wetting. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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. /NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744 /XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 2 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 3 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 4 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 5 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 6 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 7 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 8 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 9 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 10 Art Unit: 1744 Application/Control Number: 18/828,164 Page 11 Art Unit: 1744
Prosecution Insights