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 claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The current abstract is 156 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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) 1-8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20190250507 A1) in view of Torri (US 2014/0138875 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses method of shaping a surface (abstract), comprising: dispensing formable material onto a substrate held by a substrate chuck [0010];
contacting a plate held by a plate chuck assembly with the formable material on the substrate held by a substrate chuck (figure 1),
thereby forming a film of the formable material between the plate and the substrate, wherein the plate chuck assembly [0010] holding the plate is above the substrate chuck holding the substrate (figure 2A-2B),
curing the film of the formable material to form a cured layer between the plate and the substrate [0027-0028];
initiating a separation front between the cured layer and the plate at an initial separation point [0039];
tilting at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck, thereby propagating the separation front circumferentially along a perimeter of the cured layer [0047, 0043, figures 2A-2C);
applying a force to at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in a direction away from the other while maintaining or increasing the tilt of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck, until the separation front propagates along the entire perimeter of the cured layer [0046-0048] (figures 5A-5B); and continuing to apply the force to at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in the direction away from the other, until the plate does not contact the cured layer [0047-0048] (figures 4A- 6).
Although the instant application does not disclose a continuing to apply force, MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C ) discloses in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
Yoshida does not explicitly disclose the flexible portion. However, analogous lithography art, Torri, discloses a chuck assembly including a flexible portion (31,32) configured to have a central opening [0025] for the benefit of allowing the holding portion to deform in response relatively small force (figure 2A-2B). 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 flexible portion as taught by Torri, into the invention taught by Yoshida for the benefit of allowing deformation in response to small forces.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida discloses tilting the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck toward the initial separation point [0047, 0049, figures 3B and 3C].
Regarding claim 3, during the applying of the force, increasing an amount of the tilting of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck, Yoshida discloses tilting can be looked up through a look up table [0053]. 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 increasing an amount of tilting based on the Z-axis direction [0053] and the final design of the product. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches wherein the tilting of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck comprises tilting the plate chuck assembly [0054].
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida teaches wherein the tilting of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck comprises tilting the substrate chuck ( if the substrate stage is tilted, so is the substrate chuck since the chuck is on the stage [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida teaches wherein the applying of the force to at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck comprises applying the force to plate chuck assembly [0046].
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida disclose wherein the force applied to the plate chuck assembly is in a direction away from the substrate chuck [0010]. The opposite forces increases the gap (figures 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida discloses wherein the force applied to the plate chuck assembly causes the plate chuck assembly to move in a direction away from the substrate chuck [0010].
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida teaches wherein the plate is superstrate having a flat surface or is template having a patterned surface [0027] and Torri [0008].
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20190250507 A1) in view of Torri (US 2014/0138875 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Norikane (US 2020/0142299A1).
Regarding claims 9-12, Yoshida does not explicitly disclose further comprising, prior to the curing, releasing the plate from the plate chuck assembly; after the curing, holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly; wherein the initiating of the separation front is performed after the curing and prior to holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly and the initiation of the separation front is performed after the curing and after the holding of the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly. Analogous lithography art, Norikane, discloses prior to the curing, releasing the plate from the plate chuck assembly (4A-4D); after the curing, holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly (4A-4D; [0039-0042]) ; wherein the initiating of the separation front is performed after the curing and prior to holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly and the initiation of the separation front is performed after the curing and after the holding of the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly [0042]. 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 the method steps of , prior to the curing, releasing the plate from the plate chuck assembly; after the curing, holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly; wherein the initiating of the separation front is performed after the curing and prior to holding the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly and the initiation of the separation front is performed after the curing and after the holding of the plate chuck with the plate chuck assembly, as taught by Norikane, into the method taught by Yoshida for the benefit of accuracy of planarization and support for an existing facility environment [0010].
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida does not explicitly disclose wherein the tilting of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and substate chuck comprises tilting 0.01 to 10 millliradians degrees relative a horizontal plane. However, Yoshida discloses “Hence, it may be arranged so the tilt amount of the imprint head 4 at the time of mold separation will be increased when the shot region is closer to the substrate peripheral side” [0050]. “However, there is a need to prevent the mold 3 from interfering with a peripheral region when the imprint head 4 is tilted” [0051]. “The tilt amount of the mold 3 needs to be restricted to an amount which will prevent the mold 3 from interfering with the flush plate 25 b in also the case of the peripheral shot region 5-1. However, since the flush plate 25 b generally tends to be set at a height that is slightly lower than that of the substrate 5, the tilt amount of the mold 3 may be set to be smaller for the shot region 5-2 than that of the peripheral shot region 5-1” [0052]. Also [ 0053] discloses a look up table to determine the separation. MPEP 2144.05 states It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). 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 range of 0.01 to 10 milliradians since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, MPEP 2144.05 states 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.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20190250507 A1) in view of Torri (US 2014/0138875 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Uchida (US 2010/0025878 A1).
Regarding claims 14-15, Yoshida and Torri are silent to wherein the initiating of the separation front comprises contacting the superstrate with a pushpin, wherein the pushpin passes through the substrate chuck. However, analogous imprinting art, Uchida, discloses the loader unit has a push pin for pushing out each substrate or mold, a cassette moving mechanism for moving a predetermined substrate or mold to the position of the push pin, an inner circumference receiving jig for receiving the substrate or mold pushed out by the push pin [0045]. 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 the steps of the initiating of the separation front comprises contacting the superstrate with a pushpin, wherein the pushpin passes through the substrate chuck for the benefit of performing imprinting efficiently in a short time [0015].
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US20190250507 A1) in view of Torri (US 2014/0138875 A1), as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sato (US2019/0317397 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, Yoshida discloses further comprising additionally tilting the least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in a direction perpendicular to the tilting away direction; further comprising reducing an amount of the tilting away while increasing an amount of the additional tilting. However, Yoshida discloses the tilt amount of the mold 3 may be set to be smaller for the shot region 5-2 than that of the peripheral shot region 5-1 [0051]. Additionally analogous art, Sato, depicts additionally tilting the least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in a direction perpendicular to the tilting away direction in figures 6b-6c. Therefore, based on the design needs and for the purpose of improving the filling property of the imprint material, 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 comprising additionally tilting the least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in a direction perpendicular to the tilting away direction; further comprising reducing an amount of the tilting away while increasing an amount of the additional tilting.
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 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 12282251B2 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both contain the limitations A method of shaping a surface, comprising: dispensing formable material onto a substrate; contacting a plate held by a plate chuck assembly with the formable material on the substrate held by a substrate chuck, thereby forming a film of the formable material between the plate and the substrate, wherein the plate chuck assembly holding the plate is above the substrate chuck holding the substrate, and the plate chuck assembly includes :a flexible portion configured to have a central opening/central cavity; curing the film of the formable material to form a cured layer between the plate and the substrate; initiating a separation front between the cured layer and the plate at an initial separation point; tilting at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck while the plate is held by the flexible portion, thereby propagating the separation front circumferentially along a perimeter of the cured layer; and applying a force to at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck in a direction away from the other while maintaining or increasing the tilt of the at least one of the plate chuck assembly and the substrate chuck, until the separation front propagates along the entire perimeter of the cured layer.
Although the instant application does not disclose a continuing to apply force, MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C ) discloses in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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