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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/27/2026.
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, 4, 5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Selinidis et al. (US2010/0092599). Regarding claim 1, Selinidis et al. disclose “a mold used in imprint lithography (Figure 11), comprising: a base portion (item 18d) including a mesa portion (item 20d in Figure 11) protruding from a base; an alignment mark (item 160) which includes a first surface combined to a surface of the mesa portion (see Figure 11), and is formed to have a thickness from the first surface to a side opposite to the surface (see Figure 11); and a pattern portion including a second surface with a pattern formed thereon (item 22d: Examiner interprets the entire surface to be ‘a pattern portion’) and a third surface on an opposite side of the second surface (see Figure 11),wherein the pattern portion is formed of an organic material (paragraph 25), and the third surface and the surface are combined such that the pattern portion covers the alignment mark (see Figure 11).” Regarding claim 4, Selinidis et al. further disclose “wherein the surface is formed by a flat surface (see Figure 11).” Regarding claim 5, Selinidis et al. further disclose “wherein the alignment mark has a thickness of not less than 10 nm (paragraph 74).” Examiner notes that for the alignment marks to be opaque during the alignment process, especially for the materials listed, such as tantalum, amorphous silicon, and titanium, a film of 10nm or less would only transmit wavelengths of light used. Therefore, the thickness would necessarily have to be larger than 10 nm in order to be opaque. Regarding claim 7, Selinidis et al. further disclose “wherein the pattern portion includes a convex portion protruding from the second surface and defines the pattern (see the convex portions in Figure 11), and a thickness of a basal part defined by a distance between the second surface and the third surface is not less than 100 nm (paragraph 54).” Examiner notes that even though this paragraph is in reference to a different embodiment, the disclosed dimension of the depth d1 being up to 5 µm more than reasonably conveys to one having ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the patterning layer in all the embodiments would be approximately the same, which is well over the 100nm recited. Regarding claim 8, Selinidis et al. further disclose “wherein the alignment mark overlaps at least a part of a region formed by orthogonally projecting a pattern region of the pattern on the second surface to the surface of the mesa portion (see Figure 11).” Regarding claim 9, Selinidis et al. further disclose “wherein the alignment mark is located inside a region formed by orthogonally projecting a pattern region of the pattern on the second surface to the surface of the mesa portion (see Figure 11).”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinidis et al. in view of Miller et al. (US 2011/0183027). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Selinidis et al. disclose all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the pattern portion has an elastic modulus lower than an elastic modulus of the base portion,” as in claim 2, or “wherein an elastic modulus of the base portion is not less than 20 GPa, and an elastic modulus of the pattern portion is not more than 10 GPa,” as in claim 3. However, Miller et al. teach using an imprint lithography mold which uses a backing layer which has a higher elastic modulus than the patterned layer (paragraph 56), and further discloses that the backing layer can be, e.g., fused silica having an elastic modulus of 70 GPa (paragraph 53) and the patterned layer can have an elastic modulus of about 5 MPa. The mold allows for longevity, feature fidelity, and high conformability (paragraph 17). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the mold of Selinidis et al. with a high modulus backing layer (such as fused silica) and a lower modulus pattern layer of around 5 MPa in order to have longevity, feature fidelity, and/or high conformability.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selinidis et al. in view of Iwai et al. (US 2015/0192515). Regarding claim 6, Selinidis et al. discloses all that is claimed, as in claim 1 above, except “wherein the alignment mark is formed by a diffraction grating, and the alignment mark has a thickness equal to a width between slits of the diffraction grating.” However, Iwai et al. disclose using a diffraction grating as the alignment marks (paragraph 43). Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a diffraction grating as the alignment marks in Selinidis et al. because it has been shown in the art to be suitable for the intended purpose. Regarding the limitation that “the alignment mark has a thickness equal to a width between slits of the diffraction grating,” Examiner takes Official Notice that, at the time of the invention, the line width and the line depth of a diffraction grating were known parameters which affect the diffraction; the former determining the angle of diffraction and the latter determining the amount of diffraction. It has been held that when the general conditions are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, at the time of the filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to set, through routine optimization, the alignment mark thickness to the width of the alignment mark in order to determine the optimum angle of diffraction and/or amount of diffraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:30AM-6:30PM, First Fridays: 9:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JOSHUA D ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights