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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0273535 to Sato et al. (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a substrate treating method (abstract, para [0003], [0016], [0046] – [0049], Figs. 5A – 5D) for treating a substrate (para [0003]) on which a pattern is formed (para [0016]), the pattern including a plurality of projections and a plurality of recesses (para [0046], Fig. 5A), the substrate treating method comprising: a first application step of applying a first dry assistant liquid containing a thermosetting material and a solvent to the substrate (para [0047], Fig. 5B); a first curing step of heating the first dry assistant liquid on the substrate to form a first solidified film on the substrate (para [0048] – [0049], Fig. 5C); and a first thermal decomposition step of heating the first solidified film to thermally decompose the first solidified film and drying the substrate (para [0049], Fig. 5D), wherein, in the first curing step, at least a part of the first solidified film is formed above the pattern, the first solidified film is in contact with upper ends of the projections (Fig. 5C, the solidified element 11as is covering the top of the protrusions), and the entire first solidified film is located above bottoms of the recesses (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses a method wherein, in the first curing step, the first solidified film (ref. 11as) bridges the upper ends of the projections (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses a method wherein, in the first curing step, the entire first solidified film is located at a position equal to or higher than the upper ends of the projections (Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 7, Sato discloses a method wherein, in the first curing step, the first dry assistant liquid is heated at a first low temperature, and in the first thermal decomposition step, the first solidified film is heated at a first high temperature higher than the first low temperature (para [0056], temperature increased between the first heating and the second heating).
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.
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.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0273535 to Sato et al. (“Sato”).
Regarding claim 4, Sato does not explicitly teach the method wherein, in the first curing step, the first solidified film has a lower surface, the lower surface of the first solidified film is in contact with the upper ends of the projections and curves convexly upward between the projections adjacent to each other. However, since the Sato process of solidification is progressive and starts from the upper part of the thermosetting material, it can be reasonably expected that there is a moment in the process wherein the upper part of the material is solidified and not yet the lower part, and the lower surface of the solidified film is in contact with the upper end of the projections. At this moment, it can be reasonably expected that the liquid below curves convexly upward.
Regarding claim 8, Sato does not explicitly teach a method wherein, in the first curing step, the solvent in the first dry assistant liquid further evaporates. However, since the dry assistant liquid solidifies, it can be reasonably expected that the solvent evaporates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art reference is US 2015/0273535 to Sato et al. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of wherein, in the first curing step, the thermosetting material becomes a polymer, the first solidified film includes the polymer, and the polymer has a length larger than a width of the recesses (as in claim 5), or wherein, in the first curing step, a heating temperature of the first dry assistant liquid is adjusted based on a width of the recesses (as in claim 6), in combination with the other method steps as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714