Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/036,416

IMPRINT METHODS FOR FORMING A PATTERN OF AN IMPRINT MATERIAL ON A SUBSTRATE-SIDE PATTERN REGION OF A SUBSTRATE BY USING A MOLD, AND RELATED DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHODS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 24, 2025
Priority
Oct 14, 2011 — JP 2011-226637 +5 more
Examiner
HUSON, MONICA ANNE
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Canon Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 6m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allowance Rate
1090 granted / 1371 resolved
+19.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1407
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
63.4%
+23.4% vs TC avg
§102
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1371 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 28-30, and 32-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,249,394. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are slightly broader versions of the patented claims and therefore not patentably distinct therefrom, as they are effectively anticipated by the patented claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 21-27 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not clearly show or suggest the claimed lithography apparatus that forms a pattern to a resin on a substrate having a plurality of substrate-side pattern regions, especially including first and second light irradiation units, the first being configured to irradiate a substrate-side pattern region included in the plurality of substrate-side pattern regions with light having a first wavelength for deforming the substrate-side pattern region. Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12685085
FEATURE CREATION IN SUBSTRATE SUPPORTS
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12673456
METHOD FOR PRODUCING RESIN CONTAINER AND TEMPERATURE CONTROL DEVICE
2y 3m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12661843
METHOD FOR MAKING A THIN-WALLED ACOUSTIC COMPONENT
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12622484
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FORMING A MOLDED COMPONENT WITH AN INSERT
2y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12627205
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ROTOR
2y 0m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 12m (~1y 6m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1371 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month