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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 March 2026 has been entered.
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:
“maintenance unit” in Claims 1, 15, and 16 (generic placeholder: “unit”; functional language: “maintenance”), associated with a camera, a calibration board, rails, and stage [0059,0065-0066].
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the maintenance comprising and by a maintenance unit of the substrate treating apparatus that is controlled by the controller.” The limitation is indefinite as nongrammatical, and it is not clear whether words are omitted. Examiner considers the limitation to mean that a maintenance unit (e.g. a camera) does something associated with measuring and correcting ejection positions and maintenance of the inkjet head.
Claims 5-9 and 11-14 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 are allowed.
Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Nagatomo et al. (US 5,339,098) and Akahira (US 2001/0028916) are considered to be the closest prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 1, Nagatomo et al. (US’098) teach a method for preheating a substrate treating apparatus, the method comprising: by a controller (including programmable peripheral interface PPI, microprocessing unit 2, control ROM 5, head unit controller 10, drivers , and temperature comparing device 15, inter alia (col. 5, lines 1-36), setting a parameter of preheating of a preheating target component among components constituting the substrate treating apparatus, wherein the preheating target component includes an inkjet head unit NZ (col. 5, line 13) for ejecting a substrate treating liquid onto a substrate, and the parameter includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a movement distance of the inkjet head unit (the computer clearly controls movement distance, a number of repetitions of the movement of the inkjet head unit, a movement time duration of the inkjet head unit, and a waiting time after the movement of the inkjet head unit, Figs. 13-14, 16); and by the controller, preheating the preheating target component based on the set parameter, wherein a movement range of the preheating target component is configured to be controlled by the controller to be movable limited to a value within a predetermined movable range a method for preheating a substrate treating apparatus (Figs. 16A and 17A-1 to 18; col. 9, lines 44-49; col. 14, lines 3-12, 18-24, 30-49, and 61-68; col. 12, lines 46-56; Fig. 21; col. 3, lines 26-35; col. 17, lines 56-64; Example 1; Table 2; col. 14, lines 61-68). The method further comprises performing maintenance on the inkjet head unit to correct an ejection position of ejecting the substrate treating liquid from the inkjet head unit, wherein the maintenance is performed simultaneously with the preheating, since maintenance in US’098 includes reducing the viscosity so that liquid droplets can be emitted, and reducing the viscosity occurs simultaneously with preheating to maintain a temperature of recording liquid within a predetermined range for a good emitting state (at an “ejection point” of the nozzle) (col. 12, lines 25-36; col. 15, lines 37-51). In addition, “maintenance on the inkjet head unit for correcting a position of the substrate treating liquid where the substrate treating liquid is ejected on the substrate” can be considered to comprise the sequence of steps SH1-SH8, including, for instance, step SH3 “set1 to print outputs of all dots” and steps SH5-SH6 for monitoring the temperature, which occur simultaneously with the preheating (Fig. 18; col. 13, lines 28-66); together these steps can be considered to correct a position of the substrate treating liquid where the substrate treating liquid is ejected, at least since together with preheating, they ensure that droplets are ejected rather than not ejected, since the steps are involved in reducing the viscosity to a value such that the liquid droplets can be emitted and a good emitting state is achieved (col. 15, lines 37-42; col. 19, lines 8-20).
US’098 fails to teach that maintenance comprises performing maintenance on an inkjet head unit where maintenance includes cleaning of a defective nozzle that is not ejecting the substrate treating liquid onto the substrate (e.g. a clogged nozzle, bubbles). A method for preheating a substrate treating apparatus
Regarding Claim 1, Akahira (US’916) teaches a method for preheating a substrate treating apparatus, the method comprising: by a controller, setting a parameter of preheating of a preheating target component among components constituting the substrate treating apparatus, wherein the preheating target component includes an inkjet head unit that comprises nozzles that eject for ejecting a substrate treating liquid onto a substrate, and the parameter includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a movement distance of the inkjet head unit, a number of repetitions of the movement of the inkjet head unit, a movement time duration of the inkjet head unit, and a waiting time after the movement of the inkjet head unit [0066]; and
by the controller, preheating the preheating target component based on the set parameter, wherein the preheating target component is configured to be controlled by the controller to be movable within a predetermined movable range (Fig. 4; [0066].
wherein the method further comprises performing maintenance on the inkjet head unit, the maintenance comprising and by a maintenance unit (camera) of the substrate treating apparatus that is controlled by the controller measuring and correcting substrate treating liquid ejection positions of each of the nozzles of the inkjet head unit, determining, using the substrate treating liquid ejection positions, whether at least one nozzle among the nozzles is a defective nozzle that is not ejecting the substrate treating liquid, and cleaning the defective nozzle to remedy the defective nozzle not ejecting the substrate treating liquid, wherein the maintenance on the inkjet head unit performed by the maintenance unit is performed simultaneously with the preheating of the inkjet head unit [0059,0180].
US’916 fails to teach or to fairly suggest wherein the preheating and the maintenance are simultaneously performed during a dry run of the substrate treating apparatus, the dry run being performed after the substrate treating apparatus is powered on and before the substrate treating apparatus starts performing an actual printing processes to be performed on the substrate after the dry run is completed. NOTE: “dry run” is understood to mean a run in which no ink is ejected and therefore “dry.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-20 under 35 USC 112(b) and (d) have been fully considered and overcome the previous rejections under these paragraphs. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment to Claim 1, which raises additional issues under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s amendment to the claims, filed 26 March 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1, 5-9, and 11-17 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712