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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 19-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinidis (US20100092599A1), in view of Miyazawa (WO2017130888A1).
Regarding claim 19, Selinidis teaches a manufacturing method of a template (P0019, fig.14A-N), the manufacturing method comprising: forming, on a first surface of a substrate, a light transmissive film having a composition different from the composition of the substrate (P0027, P0045); forming a first member on the light transmissive film (P0049).
Selinidis is silent to forming the first member into a stepped pattern and forming a first mask material along the stepped pattern on the first member; forming a second mask material in first pattern elements on the first mask; processing the first mask material by using the second mask material in the first pattern elements as a mask; and forming a plurality of convex parts having different heights in accordance with the stepped pattern on a second surface of the light transmissive film on a side opposite the substrate by processing the first member by using the processed first mask material as a mask so that the first mask material remains and the light transmissive film is exposed.
Miyazawa, in the same field of endeavor, imprinting, teaches forming the first member into a stepped pattern forming a first mask material along the stepped pattern on the first member; forming a second mask material in first pattern elements on the first mask; processing the first mask material by using the second mask material in the first pattern elements as a mask; and forming a plurality of convex parts having different heights in accordance with the stepped pattern on a second surface of the light transmissive film on a side opposite the substrate by processing the first member by using the processed first mask material as a mask so that the first mask material remains and the light transmissive film is exposed (Fig.3, 1, P0026-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first member into a stepped pattern in the manner above to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the desired pattern to be transferred by the template as taught by Miyazawa (P0026).
Regarding claim 20, Selinidis teaches forming a material film on the first member; flattening the material film; and processing the material film by using the processed first mask material as a mask, wherein the first mask material is formed on the material film, and wherein processing the first member further includes using the processed material film as a mask so that the material film remains and the light transmissive film is exposed (P0027, P0029, P0046-49).
Regarding claim 21, Selinidis teaches wherein a width of each first pattern element of the second mask material corresponds to the width of each convex part (fig.6A-E).
Selinidis is silent to a width of each first pattern element of the second mask material is smaller than the width of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern. However, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the width of the footboard surface as desired.
Regarding claim 22, Selinidis teaches wherein a width of each first pattern element of the second mask material corresponds to the width of each convex part (fig.6A-E).
Selinidis is silent to a width of each first pattern element of the second mask material is smaller than the width of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern. However, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the width of the footboard surface as desired.
Regarding claim 23, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring the height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding convex part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Regarding claim 24, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring the height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding convex part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Regarding claim 25, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring the height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding convex part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Regarding claim 26, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring the height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding convex part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Regarding claim 27, Selinidis teaches forming a plurality of first holes through the first member by processing the first member by using the processed first mask material as a mask so that the light transmissive film is exposed; and forming, in the plurality of first holes, a light transmission member having a composition different from the composition of the substrate, wherein forming the plurality of convex parts having different heights in accordance with the stepped pattern on a second surface of the light transmissive film on a side opposite the substrate further includes removing the first member (fig.6A-E).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Selinidis teaches wherein a width of an opening part of each second pattern element of the second mask material corresponds to the width of each convex part (fig.3a of Miyazawa).
Modified Selinidis is silent to a width of each second pattern element of the second mask material is smaller than the width of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern. However, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the width of the footboard surface as desired.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinidis (US20100092599A1), in view of Miyazawa (WO2017130888A1).
Regarding claim 29, Selinidis teaches a manufacturing method of a template (P0019, fig.14A-N); forming a material film on the first surface (P0027, P0045), and in the plurality of second holes or on the plurality of pillars (Fig.6A-E); forming a first mask material on the material film (Fig.6A-E).
Selinidis is silent to forming, at a first surface of a substrate, a plurality of second holes having different depths or a plurality of pillars having different heights, and a third pattern, and forming a plurality of convex parts having different heights in accordance with the depths of the plurality of second holes or the heights of the plurality of pillars on the first surface by processing the substrate and the material film at substantially equal processing speeds by using the processed first mask material as a mask.
Miyazawa, in the same field of endeavor, imprinting, teaches forming the first member into a stepped pattern which meets the limitation of a plurality of second holes having different depths or a plurality of pillars having different heights (Fig.3, 1), and forming a plurality of convex parts having different heights in accordance with the depths of the plurality of second holes or the heights of the plurality of pillars on the first surface by processing the substrate and the material film at substantially equal processing speeds by using the processed first mask material as a mask (P0026-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first member into a stepped pattern as described above to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the desired pattern to be transferred by the template as taught by Miyazawa (P0026).
Miyazawa is silent to a third pattern. However, this is obvious based on the same rationale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a third pattern as described above to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the desired pattern to be transferred by the template as taught by Miyazawa (P0026).
Regarding claim 30, Modified Selinidis teaches wherein a width of each first pattern element of the second mask material corresponds to the width of each convex part (fig.6A-E).
Modified Selinidis is silent to a width of each third pattern element of the second mask material is smaller than the width of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern as Miyazawa is silent to a third pattern. However, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the width of the footboard surface as desired.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinidis (US20100092599A1), in view of Miyazawa (WO2017130888A1).
Regarding claim 31, Selinidis teaches a manufacturing method of a template (P0019, fig.14A-N), the manufacturing method comprising: a light transmissive film having a composition different from the composition of the substrate (P0027, P0045); forming a first member on the light transmissive film (P0049); flattening the first member; forming a first mask material on the first member; forming a second mask material (P0027, P0029, P0046-49).
Selinidis is silent to forming fourth pattern elements on the first mask material; processing the first mask material by using the second mask material in the fourth pattern elements as a mask; and forming a plurality of concave parts having different depths in accordance with the stepped pattern on a third surface of the first member on a side opposite the light transmissive film by processing the first member by using the processed first mask material as a mask so that the light transmissive film is exposed.
Miyazawa, in the same field of endeavor, imprinting, teaches forming the first member into a stepped pattern (Fig.3, 1) and processing the first mask material by using the second mask material in the pattern elements as a mask; and forming a plurality of concave parts having different depths in accordance with the stepped pattern on a third surface of the first member on a side opposite the light transmissive film by processing the first member by using the processed first mask material as a mask so that the light transmissive film is exposed (P0026-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first member into a stepped pattern to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the desired pattern to be transferred by the template as taught by Miyazawa (P0026).
Miyazawa is silent to a fourth pattern. However, this is obvious based on the same rationale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a fourth pattern as described above to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the desired pattern to be transferred by the template as taught by Miyazawa (P0026).
Regarding claim 32, Modified Selinidis teaches wherein a width of an opening part of each second pattern element of the second mask material corresponds to the width of each convex part (fig.3a of Miyazawa).
Modified Selinidis is silent to a width of each fourth pattern element of the second mask material is smaller than the width of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern. However, it has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of making the width of the footboard surface as desired.
Regarding claim 33, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring a height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding concave part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Regarding claim 34, Selinidis teaches after the formation into the stepped pattern: measuring a height of each footboard surface of the stepped pattern; and adjusting, based on a result of the height measurement of the footboard surface, the height of a region including at least a region in which the corresponding concave part is to be formed in the footboard surface (P0071).
Conclusion
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 Hindenlang can be reached on (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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741