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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to Claims 1-2, 4-12, 17-20, 22-23 in the preliminary amendment filed 10/7/2025 are acknowledged and accepted.
The cancellation of Claims 3, 13-16, 21 in the preliminary amendment filed 10/7/2025 is acknowledged and accepted.
The addition of Claims 24-26 in the preliminary amendment filed 10/7/2025 is acknowledged and accepted.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
A properly executed oath/declaration does not appear to be present in the instant application.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 12/6/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 2- ‘The present invention relates to a’ should read ‘A’
Abstract, line 5- ‘comprising’ should read ‘including’.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Examples of such errors are set forth below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms GORILLA GLASS (Page 1, line 24; Page 19, lines 1 and 2), GD-CALC (Page 16, line 26, 2 instances; Page 17, line 4), which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 17-20, 22-26 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "or other coating technique" (See line 5) renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or other coating technique"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, this limitation has not been given significant patentable weight.
Claim 1 includes the abbreviation “UV” in line 9. The full, unabbreviated word or phrase must be included the first time an abbreviation is used. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘ultraviolet (UV)’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dimensions" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘dimensions’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the height" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a height’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the range" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the aspect ratio" in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an aspect ratio’.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the range" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claims 2, 4-12, 17-20, 22-26 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the masking process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a masking process’.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the molar flow rate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a molar flow rate’.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the etching process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an etching process’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the etching process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an etching process’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the etching process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an etching process’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the molar flow rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a molar flow rate’.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the etching process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an etching process’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the molecular flow rate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a molecular flow rate’.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the etching process" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘an etching process’.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the top surface and bottom surface" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a top surface and bottom surface’.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the base diameter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a base diameter’.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the same material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a same material’.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the range" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a range’.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the swollen, phase-separated BCP film" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation has been interpreted as ‘a swollen, phase-separated BCP film’.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Claims 2, 4-12, 17-20, 22-26 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include 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:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a method as generally set forth in Claim 1, the method including, in combination with the features recited in Claim 1, infiltrating nickel metal onto one polymer material of the BCP up to a concentration of approximately 2% or less. Claims 2, 4-12, 17-20, 22-26 are dependent on Claim 1, and hence would be allowable for at least the same reasons Claim 1 is allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2017/121888A1 to Mokarian-Tabari et al.- Method for fabricating nano-patterned surfaces using block copolymers infiltrated with iron particles using iron (III) nitrate nonahydrate.
U.S. Patent No. 8097175 to Millward et al.- Patterning of a semiconductor structure using block copolymer infiltrated with a titanium- or silicon-containing oxide precursor.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2015/0103396 A1 to Zollars et al.- Antireflective structure formation on ZnS and ZnSe substrates using AlN film with deposited nickel nanoparticles.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0331833 A1 to Mokarian-Tabari et al.- Method for fabricating nano-patterned surfaces using block copolymers infiltrated with iron particles using iron (III) nitrate nonahydrate.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2023/0341761 A1 to Cheng et al.- Subwavelength nanostructures for antireflection film formed using annealed, self-assembling block copolymers.
U.S. Patent No. 8294139 to Marsh et al.- Multilayer antireflection film formed using annealed, self-assembling block copolymers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
7/28/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights