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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. [US 20190079394 A1, hereafter Huang].
As per Claim 1, Huang teaches an imprint method of forming a pattern in an imprint material arranged on each of a first region on a substrate and a second region including an overlap region overlapping an edge of the first region (See fig. 1, Para 8), comprising:
forming, in the imprint material on the first region 100, a first pattern 910 including a main pattern and a first portion formed on an overlay pattern formed in the overlap region 300, and
forming, in the imprint material on the second region 200, a second pattern 920 including a main pattern and a second portion covering the first portion of the first pattern (Para 23),
wherein in the forming the second pattern, the second pattern is formed such that a film thickness (W.sub.6) of a pattern formed in the overlap region is greater than a film thickness of the main pattern of the second pattern W.sub.5 (See fig. 5B, Para 30).
As per Claim 2, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a height of the second portion of the second pattern is not less than a height of the main pattern of the second pattern (See fig. 5B, Para 30).
As per Claim 3, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a height of the second portion of the second pattern is greater than a height of the first portion of the first pattern (Para 25).
As per Claim 4, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the main pattern of the first pattern is formed in a central region of the first region, and the second portion of the second pattern is formed in a peripheral region around the central region of the first region (See fig. 1B).
As per Claim 5, Huang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the forming the first pattern includes aligning the substrate to adjust a position where the first pattern is formed in the first region, the forming the second pattern includes aligning the substrate to adjust a position where the second pattern is formed in the second region, and in the aligning the substrate to adjust a position where the first pattern is formed in the first region and the aligning the substrate to adjust a position where the second pattern is formed in the second region, the substrate is aligned using the same overlay pattern formed on the substrate (See fig. 6, Para 43).
As per Claim 14, Huang teaches an article manufacturing method comprising: forming a pattern on a substrate using an imprint method defined in claim 1; processing the substrate on which the pattern is formed in the forming; and manufacturing an article from the processed substrate (Para 11 and 33).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 6-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Tanaka et al. [US 20160349634 A1, hereafter Tanaka].
As per Claim 6, Huang teaches a mold used to form a pattern in an imprint material on a substrate (Para 6), comprising:
a base material (not labeled) (See fig. 11); and
a pattern region 822 that is provided on a surface of the base material to face the substrate 400 and comes into contact with the imprint material, wherein the pattern region includes a main pattern region where a main pattern to be transferred to the imprint material is formed (See fig. 11, Para 50).
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein a protection pattern region provided around the main pattern region and formed with a protection pattern used to form a pattern in the imprint material on an overlay pattern formed on the substrate, and the protection pattern includes a recess depressed from the main pattern region.
Tanaka teaches the periphery (the peripheral region) of the pattern region 7a formed on the mold 7 has two different edge shapes. An edge 7aL (a first peripheral region) protrudes in the direction facing the substrate 11 (−Z direction) more than an edge 7aT (a second peripheral region). The pattern region 7a is larger in thickness at the edge 7aL (the first peripheral region) than at the edge 7aT (the second peripheral region). For this reason, the distance between the mold 7 and the substrate 11 when the pattern region 7a of the mold 7 and the substrate 11 are opposed is smaller at the edge 7aL (the first peripheral region) than at the edge 7aT (the second peripheral region). Now, the edge 7aL (the first peripheral region) is defined as a leading edge 7aL, and the edge 7aT (the second peripheral region) is defined as a trailing edge 7aT. Thus, the mold 7 has the first peripheral region and the second peripheral region at both ends of the pattern region 7a. The first peripheral region and the second peripheral region have different structures (See fig. 3, Para 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a protection pattern region as claimed in order to produce an imprint material with a uniform thickness without forming a gap between the shot regions.
As per Claim 7, Huang in view of Tanaka teaches the mold according to claim 6.
Huang further disclosed wherein a depth of the recess is not less than a depth of a recess portion forming the main pattern (See fig. 1B).
As per Claim 8, Huang in view of Tanaka teaches the mold according to claim 6.
Tanaka further disclosed wherein the main pattern region has a rectangular outer peripheral shape, and the protection pattern region is provided in a region around the main pattern region along a first side and a second side in contact with each other of four sides defining the rectangle (See fig. 3, Para 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a protection pattern region as claimed in order to produce an imprint material with a uniform thickness without forming a gap between the shot regions.
As per Claim 13, Huang in view of Tanaka teaches an imprint apparatus that forms a pattern in an imprint material on a substrate by using a mold, comprising: a mold holding unit configured to hold the mold; and a substrate holding unit configured to hold the substrate, wherein the mold includes a mold defined in claim 6 (Huang Para 11).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Tanaka as applied in claim 6 above, further in view of Jung [US 20180210352 A1].
As per Claims 9-12, Huang in view of Tanaka teaches the mold according to claim 8.
Huang in view of Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein the pattern region further includes an overlay pattern region where an overlay pattern used for alignment with an overlay pattern formed on the substrate is formed, and the overlay pattern region is provided in a region around the main pattern region and along a third side and a fourth side facing the first side and the second side, respectively, of the four sides.
Jung teaches wherein the pattern region further includes an overlay pattern region 513-2 where an overlay pattern used for alignment with an overlay pattern formed on the substrate is formed, and the overlay pattern region is provided in a region around the main pattern region 520 and along a third side and a fourth side facing the first side and the second side, respectively, of the four sides (See fig. 11, Para 6 and 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time the invention was made to incorporate a pattern as claimed in order to transfer the device pattern more precisely.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference US 20150158240 A1 to Hasse listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach other prior art apparatus/method of an imprint method of forming a pattern in an imprint material arranged on each of a first region on a substrate and a second region including an overlap region overlapping an edge of the first region that may anticipate or obviate the claims of the applicant's invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MESFIN ASFAW whose telephone number is (571)270-5247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MESFIN T ASFAW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights