Patent Application 17762411 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP

Title: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP

Application Information

Invention Title: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP
Application Number: 17762411
Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-03-22T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-03-22T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 264
National Sub-Class: 219000
Examiner Employee Number: 96718
Art Unit: 1754
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 0

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2025 has been entered.

Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. rejections have been maintained.

Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:

Claim 9 recites, “carrier form element configured to deform and tension a carrier in contact with the stamp” which includes the generic placeholder of “carrier form element” followed by the functional limitation “configured to deform and tension a carrier in contact with the stamp” and is interpreted under the requirements of 35 U.S.C 112(f). A corresponding structure to the carrier form element is disclosed in the applicant’s specifications as comprising vacuum path that can be flooded or evacuated, see [0043-0047].
Claim 20 recites, “carrier form element elevation configured to lift a carrier stamp side of the carrier off of a remaining part of the carrier form element when the carrier is tensioned” which includes the generic placeholder of “carrier form element elevation” followed by the functional limitation “configured to lift a carrier stamp side of the carrier off of a remaining part of the carrier form element when the carrier is tensioned” and needs to be interpreted under the requirements of 35 U.S.C 112(f). A corresponding structure to the carrier form element elevation is disclosed in the applicant’s specifications as comprising vacuum path that can be flooded or evacuated, see [0043-0049].

Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.

Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi (US 20060172553 A1, hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses a device (wafer chuck 122, see Fig. 2) for detaching a stamp (template 10, see Fig. 2) from a substrate (imprint layer 12, see Fig. 2) (See [0034] which discloses the wafer chuck 122 generates a straining force FC that assists in the separation of the template 10 and substrate 14 and thus imprint layer 12 thereon) comprising
A carrier form element (channels 36, see Fig. 10 [0048 and 0050] teach channels 36 are floodable paths) over which a carrier (substrate 14, see Fig. 2) is stretched and in contact therewith (see Fig. 2 substrate 14 stretched and in contact with 122, wherein Fig. 11 further depicts that 122 comprises channels 36 which are thus also in contact with said substrate 14), the carrier form element (36) being configured to deform and tension the carrier (substrate 14, see Fig. 2) in contact with the stamp (10) to deform the stamp (10) in a direction of the substrate (12) in order to detach the stamp (10) in contact with the carrier (14) (see Fig. 2 which depicts the substrate 14 in contact with the template 10 for separation, see [0034]) from the substrate (12) (See [0034] which discloses the wafer chuck 122 generates a straining force FC that assists in the separation, wherein [0048 and 0050] teaches said straining force FC is generated through the channel 36. Furthermore, see the 1st annotation Fig. 2 depicts the substrate 14 being tensioned and deformed in the direction of the imprint layer 12 in part due to the Fc. Furthermore Fig. 4 depicts a bowing force FB can be applied in conjunction with the straining forces Fc to deform the template 10 as depicted in Fig. 4, and as the bowing force FB and straining forces Fc are both applied to the center region 28 of the template 10 in the same direction, it is implicit that the magnitude of both forces contribute to the bowing/deformation of template 10, see also [0042]).

PNG
media_image1.png
660
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1st annotation of Fig. 2

Choi teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 9 in the instant application, regarding the limitations “carrier form element over which a carrier is stretched and in contact therewith” and “the carrier form element being configured to deform and tension the carrier in contact with the stamp to deform the stamp in a direction of the substrate in order to detach the stamp in contact with the carrier from the substrate” are directed to a method (or process) of operating an apparatus in the instant application rather than being directed toward further structural limitation of said apparatus in the instant application. Thus, said limitation of the claim adds little or no patentable weight. The device (wafer chuck 122, see Fig. 2) in the prior art is structurally capable of the method (or process) in said limitation of the claim, as Choi depicts Fig. 2 which depicts a substrate 14 stretched and in contact with 122, wherein Fig. 11 further depicts that 122 comprises channels 36 which are thus also in contact with said substrate 14. Choi further discloses in [0034] that the wafer chuck 122 generates a straining force FC that assists in the separation [0048 and 0050] teaches said straining force FC is generated through the channel 36. Furthermore, see the 1st annotation Fig 2 depicts the substrate 14 being tensioned and deformed in the direction of the imprint layer 12 in part due to the Fc. Furthermore Fig. 4 depicts a bowing force FB can be applied in conjunction with the straining forces Fc to deform the template 10 as depicted in Fig. 4, and as the bowing force FB and straining forces Fc are both applied to the center region 28 of the template 10 in the same direction, it is implicit that the magnitude of both forces contribute to the bowing/deformation of template 10, see [0042]. See MPEP 2114.2 for guidance on intended use.

Regarding claim 20, Choi discloses the device (wafer chuck 122, see Fig. 2) of claim 9, wherein the carrier form element (channels 36, see Fig. 10) comprises at least one carrier form element elevation (channels 36, see Fig. 10) configured to lift a carrier stamp side (see first annotation of Fig. 2) of the carrier (substrate 14, see Fig. 2) off of a remaining part of the carrier form element when the carrier (14) is tensioned (See 1st annotation of Fig. 2 depicts the side of the substrate 14 facing the template 10 being tensioned and lifted off of a remaining part of the channels 36. It should be noted that the channels 36 are depicted in more detail in Fig. 10 and [0048 and 0050] teaches that said channels 36 generate straining force FC which causes said tensioning and lift).
Choi teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 20 in the instant application, regarding the limitation “at least one carrier form element elevation configured to lift a carrier stamp side of the carrier off of a remaining part of the carrier form element when the carrier is tensioned” is directed to a method (or process) of operating an apparatus in the instant application rather than being directed toward further structural limitation of said apparatus in the instant application. Thus, said limitation of the claim adds little or no patentable weight. The device (wafer chuck 122, see Fig. 2) in the prior art is structurally capable of the method (or process) in said limitation of the claim, as Choi 1st annotation of Fig. 2 depicts the side of the substrate 14 facing the template 10 being tensioned and lifted off of a remaining part of the channels 36. It should be noted that the channels 36 are depicted in more detail in Fig. 10 and [0048 and 0050] teaches that said channels 36 generate straining force FC which causes said tensioning and lift. See MPEP 2114.2 for guidance on intended use.

Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pg. 6-9 Applicant argues that template 10 is not stretched over a stamp mold element, and that the template 10 is not in contact with the substrate 14. These arguments are not persuasive as the substrate 14 and template 10 are in at least indirect contact through the imprint layer 12, and the template 10 can be bowed and thus stretched and deformed by a bowing force FB and as said bowing force and the strain forces are in the same direction and are applied to the center region 28, it is implicit that they both contribute to the bowing of the template 10. Furthermore, it should be noted that the limitation being argued is more directed to a method rather than a structural limitation, and thus carries little to no patentable weight in an apparatus claim. Thus, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN W HATCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4625. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Susan Leong can be reached on (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.

/JOHN W HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754

Patent Application 17762411 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP - Rejection

Patent Application 17762411 - METHOD AND DEVICE FOR DETACHING A STAMP

Application Information

Rejection Summary

Cited Patents

Office Action Text

(Ad) Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months

Transform your business with AI in minutes, not months