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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/24/2026. Currently claims 1-5, and 9-20 are pending in the application.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-5, and 9-14, without traverse, drawn to a method in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. Examiner also acknowledges the Applicants note that claim 17-20 depend on claim 1, therefore should be included in Group I, however, the Examiners takes the position that since the claims are drawn to a computer program product comprising computer readable code which is run on a computer or data processor, that is coupled to an imprint system, therefore part of an imprint system, so grouping with the apparatus system is justified. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Applicants request for rejoinder is also noted.
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0366057 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Wang”, in view of Singh et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0302611 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Singh”.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method (para. [0018]) for making a micro-wire pattern in an article, using an imprint lithography stamp (para. [0004]) having a patterned surface for patterning an imprintable layer (para. [0005] [0156]), the stamp comprising a pliable stamp layer (para. [0156]: 'transparent elastomeric mold') carrying a pattern of relief features (para. [0156]: 'test structure containing separate lines'), which define a stamp pattern, wherein the stamp pattern comprises a plurality of pattern lines (sections), the pattern lines (sections) spaced from one another, and wherein each pattern line (section) comprises pattern features (para. [0156]: 'height'; 'length') for forming one or more depressions of a respective width which is different compared to the other pattern lines sections; by teaching that “the transparent elastomeric mold had a test structure containing separate lines at various widths from 2 to 20 μm and each line having an average height of about 4 μm and a length of about 10 mm”. Wang teaches in Fig. 2C to apply the stamp to an imprintable layer disposed on a substrate, the imprintable layer comprising a curable imprintable medium, whereby the imprintable layer is induced to conform to the stamp pattern.
Wang also teaches acquiring optical imaging data of the formed imprint pattern in the imprintable layer; deriving, based on the optical imaging data and based on knowledge of the differing depression widths and/or depths of the pattern sections, a conformation quality indicator indicative of layer-stamp conformation quality, wherein deriving the conformation quality indicator comprises: detecting from the optical imaging data a spatial color distribution or pattern exhibited by each pattern section; detecting from the color pattern for each pattern section a color variation pattern across a width of the at least one depression; and determining for each pattern section a color uniformity metric representative of a degree of color uniformity across the width of the at least one depression based on said detected color variation across the width of the depression; by teaching that it is concerned with imprintable layer - stamp conformation quality, as can be seen from the imprinting and evaluation process (para. [0150-0155] and Table II). Wang teaches that pattern quality is evaluated for different viscosity and temperature values of the curable and imprintable layer which is deposited on substrates. To this end, the created imprinted patterns are inspected by acquiring optical imaging data, by teaching in Fig. 4, a micrograph image of a grid of conductive micro-wires (para. [0118]), and further teaching that the resulting conductive articles were examined under an optical microscope to evaluate the resulting pattern of conductive micro-wires (para. [0154]).
But Wang fails to explicitly teach that the stamp pattern comprises a plurality of pattern sections, the pattern sections spaced from one another, and wherein each pattern section comprises pattern features for forming one or more depressions of a respective depth, which is different compared to the other pattern sections. However, Singh teaches a micro and nano-patterns in imprint layers formed on a substrate and lithographic methods for forming such layers (abstract). Singh teaches in Fig. 3 sections of patterns having different depths, and further teaches in Figs. 4A the use of such patterns to form imprint layers having depressions of different heights. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Singh and combine the use of stamp pattern comprising of a plurality of pattern sections, the pattern sections spaced from one another, and wherein each pattern section comprises pattern features for forming one or more depressions of a respective depth, which is different compared to the other pattern sections; because varying the depth of depressions (cavities) on a imprinting pattern (mold) would allow imprint lithography to fabricate complex, multi-tiered, and true 3D nanostructures in a single stamping step, resulting in to expand the pattern into the third dimension (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143). Since the references deal with imprint lithography, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claims 2-4, Wang, in view of Singh teaches a method for making a pattern, using an imprint lithography stamp having a patterned surface for patterning an imprintable layer. Singh teaches that each pattern section comprises relief features which define a respective grating of parallel lines for forming line depressions in the imprintable layer, the grating having a grating pitch and a grating duty cycle which together define a uniform grating line width of each of the line depressions, and a grating depth which defines a depth of each of the line depressions, wherein the grating of each of the plurality of pattern sections has a different respective line pitch compared to the other pattern sections, the different respective line pitch resulting in a different grating line width compared to the other pattern sections, wherein the plurality of pattern sections include at least a first set of two or more gratings, and a second set of two or more gratings, the gratings of the first set comprising lines of a first depth, and the gratings of the second set comprising lines of a second depth, and wherein each of the first and second sets of gratings include gratings respectively of a plurality of different line pitches and/or grating duty cycles; by teaching the features in Figs. 2,3,4A,4B,4C,5, and 6.
Singh also teaches that a residual layer 182 is fabricated to have a uniform RLT, but with protrusions 182a, 182b that have varying shapes, duty cycles, and/or pitches. Duty cycle refers to the ratio of the width of a protrusion 182a to an adjacent recession 184a. For example, using techniques disclosed herein features can be patterned such that the duty cycle of protrusion 182a to recession 184a is different from that of other protrusions and recessions while still maintaining a uniform RLT. Pitch refers to the total width of a protrusion 182a, 182b plus the width of an adjacent recession 184a, 184b. For example, using techniques disclosed features can be patterned such that the pitch of one set of protrusions and recessions is different from a neighboring set of protrusions and recessions while maintain a uniform RLT.
Regarding claim 5, Singh teaches the grating line width of each grating is between 0.5 and 200 micrometers, by teaching micro and nano patterns in the imprint layer (abstract).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0366057 A1), in view of Singh et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0302611 A1), in view of Landis et al. (Landis, S. et al: "Three dimensional on 300mm wafer scale nano imprint lithography processes", Microelectronic Engineering, vol. 110, pages 198-203, 2013), hereafter, referred to as “Landis”.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wang, in view of Singh teaches a method for making a pattern, using an imprint lithography stamp having a patterned surface for patterning an imprintable layer. But the references fail to explicitly teach that the method comprises of determining the conformation quality indicator based on comparing the color uniformity metric of each pattern section against a pre-defined standard, such as a threshold range, wherein determining the conformation quality indicator comprises identifying the maximum depression width, among the differing depressions widths of the plurality of pattern sections, for which the corresponding color uniformity metric meets said predefined standard. However, Landis teaches a method of characterizing the quality of imprint patterns having different depths by casting image data in the form of colours such that insufficient quality translates as nonhomogeneous colour distributions (Abstract; Section 3, Figs. 4, 5). The homogeneity of the colour distribution is therefore used as a quality metric. This known method can be readily applied to the acquired images of Wang (para. [0118]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Landis and combine with that of Wang, in view of Singh, so that the method comprises of determining the conformation quality indicator based on comparing the color uniformity metric of each pattern section against a pre-defined standard, such as a threshold range, wherein determining the conformation quality indicator comprises identifying the maximum depression width, among the differing depressions widths of the plurality of pattern sections, for which the corresponding color uniformity metric meets said predefined standard, because that would allow to evaluate the process. Since the reference deal with imprint lithography process, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Regarding claims 11-13, based on the teaching of Landis, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the method would comprise of detecting from the color pattern for each pattern section a degree of color uniformity of one or more of: a peak of the imprint pattern section, and a non-imprinted region surrounding the pattern, wherein, for each pattern section, the detected degree of color uniformity of the peak of the imprint pattern section or of the non-imprinted region surrounding the pattern is used as said pre-defined standard. Additionally, it would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the method would comprise of determining the conformation quality indicator comprising of, for each pattern section, determining from the color variation pattern across the width of the at least one depression of the pattern section a degree of height non-uniforn1ity across a base of said at least one depression based on an assumption that the color variation is indicative of a thin-film interference pattern of incident light through the imprintable layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0366057 A1), in view of Singh et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0302611 A1), in view of Van Bommel et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0064925 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Van Bommel”.
Regarding claim 14, Wang, in view of Singh teaches a method for making a pattern, using an imprint lithography stamp having a patterned surface for patterning an imprintable layer. But the references fail to explicitly teach that the method comprises of, wherein the stamp is a Substrate Conformal Imprint Lithography (SCIL) stamp. However, Van Bommel teaches in Fig. 2, an example embodiment of the method of the present invention applied in a UV imprint lithography technique. For instance, a UV surface conformal imprint lithography (UV-SCIL) technique may be used. Van Bommel teaches that a substrate 10, which may be any suitable semiconductor substrate, carries a further layer 20 which requires patterning. The further layer 20 may be any suitable layer, e.g. a dielectric layer. In step (a), an aqueous curable imprintable medium 30 including the curable compound is deposited over the further layer 20. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Van Bommel and combine with that of Wang, in view of Singh, so that the method comprised of a stamp, which is a Substrate Conformal Imprint Lithography (SCIL) stamp, because SCIL combines the high resolution of rigid stamps with the flexibility of soft stamps, enabling large-area nanoimprinting (300 mm) without pattern deformation or substrate damage. Since the reference deal with imprint lithography process, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights