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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motokawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0088906). Regarding Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9, Motokawa et al., hereafter “Motokawa,” show that it is known to have an imprint apparatus and method that brings a curable composition on a substrate and a mold into contact with each other to be cured, and molds the curable composition into a pattern shape of the mold (Abstract; 0002-0007, 0104), comprising an irradiation unit (element 59), and at least one processor or circuit configured to function as a control unit to control the irradiation unit (element 60; 0104). The examiner notes that claims 1-2, 4-6 are claims to an apparatus which is not limited by function (i.e. particular ways in which the irradiation unit functions), only structural features. Alternatively, it may be interpreted that the apparatus also would require what the control unit is “configured to” carry out, similar to method claim 9. Motokawa discloses that his irradiation unit can be controlled to apply two different energy amounts (0113, 0119). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the energy amounts/locations with Motokawak’s apparatus during the molding process, such as claimed, in order to create the desired patterns and cure amounts, and because adjusting the irradiation amounts is known in the art and specifically to Motokawa.
Regarding Claim 7, Motokawa shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not show the particularly claimed substrate structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the substrate to have any appropriate structure, such as that which is claimed, in order to provide the desired support to the curable composition and because configuration is held to be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding Claim 8, Motokawa shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, including one wherein the curable composition is applied to the substrate in advance (element 57; 0102).
Regarding Claim 10, Motokawa shows that it is known to carry out an article manufacturing method comprising molding a curable composition on a substrate of claim 1, and a step of processing the substrate through the step of molding, wherein an article is manufactured from the substrate through the step of processing (0098-0108).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motokawa, in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Patent 9,405,193). Motokawa shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, but he does not show two separate irradiation mechanisms. Kondo et al., hereafter “Kondo,” show that it is known to have an imprint apparatus comprising a first irradiation and a second irradiation mechanism (Abstract; Column 3, lines 17-26). It would have been obvious to use Kondo’s first and second irradiation mechanisms instead of Motokawa’s variable mechanism in order to facilitate customizing the beam path from different directions/locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA HUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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 at 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 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.
MONICA ANNE HUSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights