DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 14, 2026, has been entered.
The applicant contends:
(1) The cited prior art fails to disclose the new material presently recited by claim 1, whereby the heater overlaps the etchant’s meniscus “only” at its thickest portion. The reference of Kim, for example, as shown by Figure 1, orients the substrate vertically, meaning that a meniscus will not form at the central region of the table (100) where the heater (HW1) is disposed but, instead, the etchant will accumulate at a bottom of the stage in direction DR2 (p. 9 of the 3/16/26 remarks).
(2) The cited prior art does not disclose the claimed feature of a “chemically resistant layer coated on the supporter.” Although the Office asserts that Kim’s apparatus can coat the layer on the supporter in situ, there is no evidence that Kim’s etching apparatus is capable of executing deposition (p. 10). Further, claim 1 recites the chemically resistant layer as a structural feature rather than a functional one (p. 11).
(3) The examiner has previously asserted that “etching and deposition inhere from molecular interactions among the reactants,” but it is also true that these operations are enabled by specific considerations such as temperature and pressure, and it is not clear that Kim’s apparatus is capable of satisfying the conditions necessary to form a coating such as the claimed “chemically resistant layer” (pp. 13-14).
(4) The examiner’s reliance upon Ex parte Masham case law is inapplicable, as the claimed chemically resistant layer is a structural feature and is not directed to the “manner of employing” (p. 17).
In response,
(1) As an initial matter, the examiner observes that Kim is modified by Yamabe, resulting in a composite prior art apparatus in which the supporter is oriented horizontally. In such an instance, the meniscus will necessarily crest at the supporter’s central region, which is also the location of Kim’s heater.
Secondly, even given Kim’s vertical supporter, the region opposed to the inner five nozzles (210) accumulates a greater etchant thickness than the outer nozzles due to overlapping dispersions, as depicted by Figure 2. (That is, the outermost region of the substrate only receives a direct dispersion of etchant from a single nozzle, whereas a given point within the inner region of the substrate will receive a direct dispersion of etchant from three nozzles.) Thus, although the etchant spray may quickly descend along the substrate’s surface in the direction of DR2 due to gravity, the distribution of etchant along direction DR1 is non-linear, with the greatest concentration being within region AR1 which, again, coincides with the location of the heater.
(2) Firstly, the examiner observes that the result of using Kim’s applier to disperse a layer to the supporter is, in fact, a layer coated on the supporter. This resultant layer is, of course, structural. The examiner further observes that the metes of “chemically resistant layer” appear nearly boundless, since every molecule is relatively “resistant” in some way to some other molecule for reasons as ordinary as inadequate chemical affinity. This means that essentially every fluid may be considered “chemically resistant.”
Kim provides two storage tanks for collecting the solution used to etch the glass substrate. The examiner notes that this etchant may be dispersed to the supporter before the substrate’s ingress to serve as the “chemically resistant layer.” Although this may be imprudent in certain contexts depending on the material composition of the substrate, such considerations are irrelevant because Kim’s apparatus is inherently capable of forming the aforementioned layer; accordingly, no further justification is needed. In other words, because Kim’s apparatus does not require modification to generate the claimed layer, the corresponding mode of use does not obligate a demonstration of advantage or obviousness.
Alternatively, rather than providing an etchant to both storage tanks, Kim may charge one of the them with water and disperse the water to the supporter to serve as the “chemically resistant layer.” Water is resistant to many compounds, such as a carbon-fluorine acid, and therefore satisfies the title of “chemically resistant.”
Applicant seems to be arguing that there is no “evidence” Kim’s storage tanks can contain any other fluid than that used to etch the glass. However, the laws of physics, as well as the deliverances of the chemical and material sciences, are evidence, and a storage tank capable of containing an industrial etchant is necessarily capable of containing a substance like water. The examiner invites the applicant to clearly explain the mechanism by which a fluid storage tank would somehow be rendered incapable of containment if charged with water.
(3) As admitted by the applicant, optimizing for a specific act of etching requires tuning within broad parameters of temperature and pressure, and Kim provides means to do so. Of course, those same means can be availed to tune for an act of deposition. It is the position of the Office that Kim’s apparatus is capable of tuning the parameters of temperature and pressure to enable an act of coating. More specifically, Kim’s apparatus, at the very least, can operate at room temperature and pressure. Simply observing that various acts of coating can proceed at room temperature and pressure is sufficient to justify the conclusion that Kim’s apparatus is structurally capable of coating some type of layer on the supporter.
Ultimately, the etching-deposition dichotomy is moot, as claim 1 only requires the chemically resistant layer to be “coated on the supporter.” The act of applying a layer to a surface does not establish properties of the chemical itself, e.g., whether the chemical etches or deposits upon reaching a substrate of a particular material composition.
(4) The examiner notes that the composite prior art apparatus can be deployed by the operator to form the chemically resistant layer. This is the act of intended use. The result of this act, of course, is an apparatus comprising, henceforth, the structural feature of a chemically resistant layer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 12, 2026, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language – specifically the Chinese Office Action dated February 10, 2026. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependents are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to stipulate that the heater overlaps the etchant’s meniscus “only” at its thickest portion. The inclusion of the adverb only is not supported by the language of the original disclosure and constitutes new matter. The examiner understands the metes of the new material to disqualify, for instance, a heater whose width extends beyond the boundary of the meniscus’ thickest portion, i.e., a scenario where the heater overlaps a portion of the meniscus that is not the “thickest.” However, because the specification does not even define the “thickest portion” of the meniscus or how to calculate this value, there is no way to compare the width of the heater to the width of the “thickest portion of the meniscus” so as to determine relative degree of overlap therebetween. For these reasons, the contested language is considered new matter.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., KR 2018-0132201, in view of Yamabe et al., JP 2008-198633.
Claim 1: Kim discloses an etching device (Fig. 2), comprising:
A supporter (100);
A heater (HW1) disposed inside a groove formed within the supporter;
An applier (210) disposed above the supporter for supplying an etchant;
A glass (SUB) disposed on the supporter;
Wherein the applier overlaps the heater (Fig. 2);
Wherein heater (HW1) overlaps the meniscus at its thickest portion (Fig. 2).
Regarding the recitation of a “chemically resistant layer,” the operator can fill a storage portion (300) with an appropriate coating solution and then dispense the fluid to the supporter (100) via the applier (210) so as to form a chemically resistant layer thereon as an in situ process before the ingress of the glass substrate. It should be noted that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Further, Figure 15 depicts an embodiment in which the central applier (210) and the two peripheral appliers (220) are each provided with a dedicated storage unit (310, 320). Such a configuration would permit the operator to differentially regulate the relative flow rates of the central and peripheral appliers to achieve the claimed result of reducing etchant thickness from the glass’ center to its periphery, as recited by the penultimate paragraph of claim 1. For example, the operator could establish a higher flow rate through the central applier in relation to the peripheral appliers. The examiner notes that, in an apparatus claim, a demonstration of the prior art’s capacity to reproduce a claimed function is sufficient to satisfy the threshold for rejection, as a recitation concerning the manner in which a claimed apparatus is to be employed does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham 2, USPQ2D 1647).
Although Kim omits the depiction of a chamber that encloses the components of the etching device, the examiner takes official notice that it is known in the art to execute a liquid etching process within a chamber to contain the processing fluids and protect the workpiece from external contamination. For these reasons, it would have been obvious to incorporate Kim’s etching mechanisms within a processing chamber.
Continuing, Kim does not specify the orientation of the glass substrate; thus, the reference cannot definitively establish the claimed condition of an etch surface oriented horizontally. In supplementation, Yamabe also discloses a series of appliers (4) for delivering a liquid etchant to a glass substrate (2) disposed on a supporter (Best Mode). And yet, as shown by Figures 1 and 2, the etch surface of the glass is orthogonal to a gravitational vector. The examiner understands Yamabe to evidence the suitability of this alternative orientation for the purpose of etching a glass substrate, whereby it would have been obvious to try this technique within Kim’s system since choosing among a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Lastly, regarding the new material, Kim’s heater (HW1) is embedded within the central portion of the supporter, which also may be the thickest portion of the applied etchant given that this central portion receives a higher volume of etchant than the periphery. Although it is unclear if the heater overlaps the meniscus “only” at the thickest portion, the operator can change the diameter of the meniscus by changing the flow rate of the etchant, and it is the Office’s position that the claimed configuration can be achieved through this act of routine experimentation.
Claim 4: Kim’s Figure 2 depicts an embodiment in which the heater (HW1) is contained within the supporter so that it does not directly contact the glass. A layer of the supporter, then, interposes between the heater and glass, whereby this layer may be considered “chemically resistant.”
Claim 6: The opening in Kim’s applier which permits the delivery of the etchant to the glass may be considered a “slit.”
Claim 7: Kim’s applier sprays an etchant, whereby the act of spraying constitutes a “process.”
Claim 8: Kim’s apparatus is capable of controlling the etchant’s distribution and the heater’s temperature in order to generate the final objective of forming a central groove within the glass – it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yamabe, and in further view of Chung et al., US 2014/0096716.
Kim does not specify the heater’s category. In supplementation, Chung discloses a processing apparatus in which a heater (6) is embedded within the susceptor to regulate the substrate’s temperature (Fig. 6). Chung avails a sheath-type heater for this purpose, thereby demonstrating the viability of this design for the purpose of heating a substrate [0044]. It would have been obvious to form Kim’s heater as a sheath-type, as choosing from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within the scope of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Chaparala, US 2017/0246841. Figures 7 and 8 of Chaparala depict the application of heat (116a-b) to a glass workpiece to soften the material and render it more amenable to folding [0058-60].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights