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 Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogasawara (US 2020/0171716 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ogasawara discloses a film forming apparatus comprising: a substrate stage (3) including a substrate holder ([0017] discloses a substrate holder) configured to hold a substrate; a mold holder (12) configured to hold a mold; a driving mechanism (31) configured to change an interval between the substrate holder and the mold holder [0019]; and a curing device (24) configured to cure a curable composition in a state in which the curable composition arranged on the substrate and the mold contact each other [0039], wherein the substrate stage includes a gas blower (110) configured to supply, to the substrate held by the substrate holder, a gas for inhibiting curing of the curable composition.
Regarding claim 2, Ogasawara discloses wherein the gas blower is arranged to surround the substrate held by the substrate holder (110 in figure 1) [0036-0037].
Regarding claim 5, Ogasawara discloses comprising a second gas blower arranged to face the substrate stage and configured to blow a curing inhibition gas for inhibiting curing of the curable composition (there are two 110 in figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, as for the claim limitation, wherein the second gas blower selectively blows one of the curing inhibition gas and a filling promotion gas for promoting filling of a space formed between the substrate and the mold with the curable composition, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 7, as for the claim limitation, wherein the second gas blower ends blowing of the filling promotion gas before curing the curable composition, and then starts blowing of the curing inhibition gas, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 8, as for the claim limitation, wherein after the end of blowing of the filling promotion gas by the second gas blower, the gas blower starts blowing of the gas for inhibiting curing of the curable composition, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II).
Regarding claim 13, Ogasawara discloses wherein the driving mechanism drives at least one of the substrate holder and the mold holder to bring the curable composition and the mold into contact with each other or separate the curable composition and the mold from each other [0019].
Regarding claim 14, wherein the mold holder holds, as the mold, a mold having a pattern, and a film on which the pattern is transferred is formed by curing the curable composition, , "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the mold holder holds, as the mold, a mold having a flat surface, and a film having a flat surface is formed by curing the curable composition, applicant is stating properties of the final product and not the apparatus. The prior art structure is considered capable of producing a flat surface. There appears to be no structural difference resulting from the claimed flat surface.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 2020/0171716 A1) in view of KR101063105B1, herein referred to as ‘105.
Regarding claim 3, Ogasawar does not explicitly disclose wherein the gas blower includes a plurality of gas blowholes, and the plurality of gas blowholes are arranged at equal intervals on a circle concentric with a center of the substrate. However, analogous art, ‘105, discloses using a plurality of gas blowholes, and the plurality of gas blowholes are arranged at equal intervals on a circle concentric with a center of the substrate (see figures 3-4 and 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a plurality of gas blowholes, and the plurality of gas blowholes are arranged at equal intervals on a circle concentric with a center of the substrate, as taught by ‘015, into the apparatus taught by Ogasawar for the benefit of providing uniform flow rate (first paragraph summary of the invention).
Regarding claim 4, ‘105 further discloses wherein the gas blower includes a gas blowhole having a ring shape, and a center of the ring shape coincides with a center of the substrate held by the substrate holder (see figures 3-4 and 13).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 2020/0171716 A1) in view of Koshiba (US2015/0224536 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ogasawara does not explicitly disclose a third gas blower arranged to face the substrate stage, wherein the third gas blower blows a filling promotion gas for promoting filling with the curable composition, to supply the filling promotion gas to a space formed between the substrate and the mold. However, analogous art, Koshiba, discloses a third gas blower (see figure 9) arranged to face the substrate stage. Further, MPEP 2144.04 VI states In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a third gas blower since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Koshiba depicts wherein the third gas blower is arranged between the second gas blower and the mold held by the mold holder (figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, as for the claim limitation, wherein the third gas blower ends blowing of the filling promotion gas before curing the curable composition, and after the end of blowing of the filling promotion gas by the third gas blower, the gas blower starts supply of the gas for inhibiting curing of the curable composition, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogasawara (US 2020/0171716 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ogasawara does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the gas blower and an edge of the substrate falls within a range of 1 mm to 30 mm. However, Ogasawara discloses “if the gas filling is insufficient, the head 13 may be raised in the + direction of the Z axis, and an additional step may be carried out to promote the effect of pulling in the process gas by increasing the distance between the substrate 1 and the mold 11” [0049]. Therefore, the distance is a result effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: WO2016204022
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights