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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irving et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 20230053682). Regarding Claims 1-6, and 9, Irving et al., hereafter “Irving,” 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; 0059), comprising an irradiation unit (0015, 0017, 0024), at least one processor or circuit configured to function as a control unit to control the irradiation unit (0019, 0022-0025, 0041), wherein the irradiation unit includes a first irradiation mechanism including a spatial light modulation element that irradiates the region including the specific region with the first energy, and a second irradiation mechanism that irradiates the entire molding region of the substrate with the second energy (0015, 0017, 0023), wherein the spatial light modulation element includes a plurality of irradiation cells that are individually switchable between ON and OFF (0024), and wherein the control unit is further configured to control the irradiation unit such that the curable composition on the specific region is irradiated with the first energy by switching each of the plurality of irradiation cells between ON and OFF to irradiate the specific region of the molding region (0024-0036. The examiner notes that claims 1-8 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. Irving discloses that his irradiation unit can be controlled to apply two different energy amounts (0016-0017, 0022-0025, 0057, 0061). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the energy amounts/locations with Irving’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 Irving. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any order application of irradiation, relative to mold contact with the composition, because selectin of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)).
Regarding Claim 7, Irving 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, Irving shows the apparatus of claim 1 above, including one wherein the curable composition is applied to the substrate in advance (0019).
Regarding Claim 10, Irving 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 (0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are drawn to the claims as-amended which required further consideration and search.
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 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