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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendment received by the office on 29 June 2026. Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 7-13 are withdrawn as non-elected. Claim 1 is amended. No Claims are added or cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are not presented with the correct claim status identifiers. Withdrawn claims are required to present with the claim status ‘Withdrawn’. Whereas claim 7-13 are given the status identifier ‘Previously Presented’. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0244243 to Yoshihito Kobayashi (‘243 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘243 teaches a stamp for imprint lithography, the stamp defining a desired shape for a curable resin, wherein the stamp is at least partially transparent to electromagnetic radiation used to cure the curable resin (paragraph 0033), and wherein the stamp comprises at least one diffuser structure for diffusing the electromagnetic radiation as the electromagnetic radiation propagates through the stamp, wherein the at least one diffuser structure comprises microparticles and/or nanoparticles (paragraph 0013), wherein the dimensions of the microparticles and/or nanoparticles in the stamp are greater than a wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation (insofar as this limitation is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus. The prior art teaching regarding particle size would meet this limitation if the prior art stamp were employed in a soft X-ray to extreme ultraviolet light process, such as that taught by the attached teaching reference, “Broadband interference lithography at extreme ultraviolet and soft x-ray wavelengths” by Mojarad et al.).
Regarding claim 3, ‘243 teaches the stamp wherein the microparticles and/or nanoparticles comprise oxide, dioxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, zirconium dioxide, hafnium dioxide, aluminium oxide, and/or indium tin oxide (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 5, ‘243 teaches the stamp wherein the microparticles and/or nanoparticles comprise at least one of: microspheres and/or nanospheres; microrods and/or nanorods; microcubes and/or nanocubes; core-shell particles; nanopowder particles; raspberry-like particles; and/or spike particles (paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 6, ‘243 teaches the stamp wherein the stamp comprises a polymer, polydimethylsiloxane, epoxy, silicone, and/or an inorganic-organic hybrid polymer stamp (paragraph 0034).
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘243 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0168604 to Guo et al. (‘604 hereafter).
Regarding claim 2, ‘243 does not teach the claimed wight percentage.
In the related art of light transmittant polymer article formation, ‘604 teaches a structure wherein the structure comprises 0.1 - 5 weight percentage of the microparticles and/or nanoparticles (paragraph 0007) for the benefit of providing even illumination from harsh point sources of light. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘243 with those of ‘604 for the benefit of forming a lithography stamp with even light transmittance across its structure.
Regarding claim 4, ‘243 does not teach the size of the nanoparticles.
In the related art of light transmittant polymer article formation, ‘604 teaches the article wherein dimensions of the microparticles and/or nanoparticles are in the range 500 nanometres - 900 micrometres (paragraph 0007 teaches a particle size of 2-20 micrometers which lies entirely within the claimed range.) for the benefit of providing even illumination from harsh point sources of light. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘243 with those of ‘604 for the benefit of forming a lithography stamp with even light transmittance across its structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has advanced several arguments in support of the patentability of the instant claims. They are:
The ‘243 reference teaches the use of nano-scale particles to control ‘optical transmittance’ and not diffusion as claimed.
The nanoparticles of the ‘243 reference are in the resin and not the stamp as claimed.
The particle size of the nanoparticles of the ‘243 reference are not greater than a wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation as claimed.
Regarding argument (i), to what purpose a structural component is put in the prior art reference is not relevant to the rejection of an apparatus claim. The applied prior art teaches the structure claimed. However, examiner does note that optical diffusion is at least in part controlled by diffusion or scattering. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding argument (ii), after careful review of the prior art, examiner has determined the resin claimed is the resin used to form the stamp (see paragraph 0009 of ‘243). This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding argument (iii), examiner notes that this is a recitation of intended use of a claimed apparatus and not accorded patentable weight (See MPEP 2114). Examiner further notes that the prior art teaching regarding particle size would meet this limitation if the prior art stamp were employed in a soft X-ray to extreme ultraviolet light process. This argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights