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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are objected to for the following informalities:
“after the liquid film is formed and from before the contact” should read “after the liquid film is formed and before the contact”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi (KR-20210059631), using the attached original document and translation.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches:
A film formation method ([0011] - [0015]; Fig. 1) comprising:
an arrangement step of discretely arranging, as droplets, a curable composition ([0011] – [0020]) that includes at least a polymerizable compound, a photopolymerization initiator, and a solvent on a shot region of a substrate ([0014]);
a liquid film formation step of causing each of the droplets discretely arranged on the shot region to combine with adjacent droplets so as to form a continuous liquid film on the shot region ([0015]), and causing the solvent included in the liquid film to evaporate ([0034]);
a contact step of causing a predetermined region of a mold to come into contact with the liquid film ([0020], [0028], and [0034]);
a main exposure step of curing the liquid film by irradiating curing light onto the liquid film after the contact ([0020], [0028], and [0039]); and
a preliminary light irradiation step of irradiating preliminary light different from the curing light onto the liquid film so as to increase the viscosity of the liquid film, wherein the preliminary light irradiation step is performed after the liquid film formation step and from before the contact step ([0027] and [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising an alignment step of moving the mold or the substrate so as to eliminate position deviation between the shot region and a pattern region of the mold ([0024], [0031] – [0032], and [0035] – [0039]).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
further comprising a sub-region selection step of selecting a sub-region consisting of at least one or more of the shot regions from the substrate ([0027] and [0042]),
wherein the arrangement step to the main exposure step are performed for each of the sub-regions ([0027], [0032] – [0034], [0037] – [0042], and [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the sub-region is a plurality of the shot regions arranged along a direction connecting a curable composition supply unit that is configured to arrange the droplets on the shot region and a preliminary light irradiation unit that is configured to irradiate the preliminary light ([0027], [0032] – [0034], [0037] – [0042], [0049], and [0053] – [0055]; Figs. 1, 4 and 6, S).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 11 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the liquid film formation step is sequentially performed for each of the shot regions in the sub-region for which the arrangement step has been completed ([0027], [0032] – [0034], [0037] – [0042], [0049], and [0053] – [0055]; Figs. 1, 4, and 6, S).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 12 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the method transitions to the preliminary light irradiation step after the liquid film formation step has been completed for all of the shot regions on the substrate ([0032] - [0034] and [0040] – [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 13 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
wherein the preliminary light irradiation step is performed only for some of the shot regions among all of the shot regions on the substrate after the liquid film formation step and from before the contact step ([0032] - [0034] and [0040] – [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 14 depends on. Hayashi further teaches:
A method of manufacturing an article, the method comprising: a manufacturing step of manufacturing an article from the substrate by processing the substrate ([0056]) having a film formed by the film formation method according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi teaches:
A film formation apparatus ([0011] – [0015]; Fig. 1, #100) comprising:
a curable composition supply unit ([0012]; Fig. 1, #180) configured to discretely arrange, as droplets, a curable composition ([0011] – [0020]) that includes at least a polymerizable compound, a photopolymerization initiator, and a solvent on a shot region of a substrate ([0014]);
a mold positioning unit ([0021]; Fig. 1, #130 and #134) configured to cause each of the droplets discretely arranged on the shot region to combine with adjacent droplets so as to form a continuous liquid film on the shot region ([0015] – [0021]; Figs. 1, and 4, S), and after causing the continuous liquid film to be formed, cause a predetermined region of a mold to come into contact with the liquid film ([0020], [0028], and [0034]);
a curing light irradiation unit configured to perform main exposure of curing the liquid film by irradiating curing light onto the liquid film after the contact ([0020], [0028], and [0039]; Fig. 1, #120); and
a preliminary light irradiation unit configured to irradiate preliminary light different from the curing light onto the liquid film so as to increase viscosity of the liquid film, wherein the preliminary light irradiation unit is configured to irradiate the preliminary light after the liquid film is formed and from before the contact with the mold ([0027] and [0034]; Fig. 1, #200).
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.
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (KR-20210059631), as applied to claims 2 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Matsuoka (KR-20220110106), using the attached original documents and translations.
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on, but does not explicitly teach performing the alignment and irradiation steps in parallel. However, Matsuoka, in a similar field of endeavor, a film formation method, teaches:
wherein the preliminary light irradiation step and the alignment step are performed in parallel ([0031] – [0036]; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steps of Hayashi to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka and perform the preliminary irradiation and alignment steps in parallel. The purpose, as stated by Matsuoka, being improving the alignment precision between the mold (M) and the substrate (W) ([0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on, but does not explicitly teach performing the contact and irradiation steps in parallel. However, Matsuoka, in a similar field of endeavor, a film formation method, teaches:
wherein the preliminary light irradiation step and the contact step are performed in parallel ([0031]; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steps of Hayashi to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka and perform the preliminary irradiation and contact steps in parallel. The purpose, as stated by Matsuoka, being to irradiate pre-curing light (Lp) onto the imprint material (R) while the mold (M) is in contact with the imprint material ([0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, but does not explicitly teach controlling a time interval for arranging the droplets and irradiating the material. However, Matsuoka, in a similar field of endeavor, a film formation method, teaches:
wherein a time interval from discretely arranging the droplets on the shot region to irradiating the preliminary light onto the liquid film is controlled so as to be within a predetermined target range ([0043] – [0048] and [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steps of Hayashi to incorporate the teachings of Matsuoka and calculate a time interval relating from the arranging of the droplets and irradiation. The purpose, as stated by Matsuoka, being that the curing time (Ts) can be determined based on the result of detecting the relative position between the mold (M) and the substrate (W) while irradiating low-illumination light (Ls) onto the imprint material (R) on a predetermined area of the substrate ([0043]).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (KR-20210059631), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aihara (KR-20190132253) and Matsuoka (KR-20220110106), using the attached original documents and translations.
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not explicitly teach observing a combination state. However, Aihara, in a similar field of endeavor, a film formation method, teaches:
wherein a combination state between the droplets discretely arranged on the shot region and adjacent droplets is observed ([0029] – [0033] and [0042] – [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Hayashi to incorporate the teachings of Aihara and observe a combination state. The purpose, as stated by Aihara, being using this method will reduce the adjustment time during the creation of supply patterns ([0052]).
Hayashi in view of Aihara does not explicitly teach:
a timing for irradiating the preliminary light is determined based on the combination state range.
However, Matusoka, in a similar field of endeavor, a film formation method, teaches:
a timing for irradiating the preliminary light is determined based on the combination state range ([0043] – [0048] and [0065]). Matsuoka describes determining the timing for irradiating the preliminary light based off characteristics of the method and the positioning of the material and the mold. While Matsuoka does not explicitly describe basing the timing on the combination state range, as described by Aihara above. Aihara does describe determining a combination state and using that to determine the control parameters, see the rejection above. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Aihara and Matsuoka to modify Hayashi and teach the limitation of using the combination state range to determine the timing for irradiating the preliminary light in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality. The purpose, as stated by Matsuoka, being that the amount of irradiation light of the pre-curing light (Lp) in the pre-curing stage can be determined based on the curing time ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi in view of Aihara and Matsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 7 depends on. Aihara further teaches:
wherein the combination state relates to a ratio of the shot region covered by the liquid film ([0029] – [0033] and [0042] – [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi in view of Aihara and Matsuoka teaches the limitations of claim 6, which claim 8 depends on. Aihara further teaches:
wherein the combination state relates to a distance from an outer periphery of the liquid film to an outer periphery of the shot region ([0029] – [0033] and [0042] – [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights