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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 April 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 17 March 2024 was previously acknowledged.
Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply. Claims 15-20 were cancelled in the aforementioned reply. Claims 12-14 have been cancelled as of the most recent submission.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 November 2024 fails to fully 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. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein – and lined through -- has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 27 April 2026 has been considered as annotated.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 455. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: claims 1 and 4: support unit, which has been interpreted as a chuck, a support pin, a support shaft and a driving member, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 86; claim 9: liquid supply unit, which has been interpreted as a nozzle, a fixing body, a rotation shaft, and a rotation member, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 97.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 heating unit has not been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim includes sufficient structure to perform the claimed function(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-7 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. Any claim not specifically addressed is rejected based on its dependence.
Claim 4 recites “the fourth quadrant being an area in which the sum of a movement amount in the first direction and a movement amount in the second direction of the laser irradiator is minimized from the standby position to the irradiation position”. The claim is not clear because it does not appear that the fourth quadrant is intended to be a sum of a movement amounts, nor is it clear that the controller is configured movements corresponding to location with respect to the fourth quadrant. Thus, in order to expedite Examiner has assumed the claim was meant to recite “the fourth quadrant corresponding to an area in which the sum of a movement amount in the first direction and a movement amount in the second direction of the laser irradiator by the driver of the heating unit controlled by controller is minimized from the standby position to the irradiation position” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
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) 1-3 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 10-2019-0037379 to Kim et al. (translation attached) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0370697 to Oshemkov et al. and JP Pub. No. 2003-282400 to Ogawa.
Regarding claim 1: Kim et al. discloses an apparatus capable of treating a masks/substrate and substantially as claimed, the apparatus comprising: a support unit (340, having chuck [342], a support pin [344], a support shaft [348] and a driving member [350]) capable to support and rotate a masks/substrate, a heating unit including a laser irradiator (391) and a driver (394, see, e.g., page 5 of reference/translation as provided to Applicant), the laser irradiator being configured to irradiate a laser light to a second pattern of a mask/substrate, the driver being a linear motor, the linear motor being configured to change a position of the laser irradiator; and a controller (400; see, e.g., Fig. 7 and accompanying text of translation) configured to control the support and the heating unit/heater.
Kim et al. discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above, wherein the apparatus is capable of use with respect to a substate for removing unnecessary regions thereof using heat from a laser to increase reactivity to an etching material. Further, the substrate support is capable of rotating an article worked such that wherein when a treating position (of the substrate) is divided into four equal parts that include a first quadrant, a second quadrant, a third quadrant, and a fourth quadrant based on the center of the mask, the laser irradiator is positioned at the fourth quadrant and the first quadrant in a direction linearly moving from a standby position (e.g., a position from the center of the substrate and the support unit out of a process/treatment position), positioned at the third quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the fourth quadrant, and positioned at the second quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the first quadrant . See, e.g., Fig. 5
However, Kim et al. fail to disclose the substrate worked upon is a mask, wherein the mask has a first pattern within a plurality of cells thereof and a second pattern outside regions of the plurality of cells, wherein when a treating position (of the mask) is divided into four equal parts from a first quadrant to a fourth quadrant based on the center of the mask, the laser irradiator is positioned at the fourth quadrant and the first quadrant in a direction linearly moving from a standby position, positioned at the third quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the fourth quadrant, and positioned at the second quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the first quadrant.
Oshemkov et al. disclose a laser processing apparatus wherein a mask is processed and wherein the mask has a first pattern within a plurality of cells thereof and a second pattern outside regions of the plurality of cells, wherein when a treating position (of the mask) is divided into four equal parts from a first quadrant to a fourth quadrant based on the center of the mask, positioned at the third position in a direction which is perpendicular to the fourth quadrant, and positioned at the second quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the first quadrant for the purpose of purpose of correcting critical dimensions of the mask (see, e.g., abstract). Also, see annotation below.
PNG
media_image1.png
401
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a mask as the substrate in Kim et al., wherein the mask has a first pattern within a plurality of cells thereof and a second pattern outside regions of the plurality of cells, wherein when a treating position (of the mask) is divided into four equal parts from a first quadrant to a fourth quadrant based on the center of the mask, the laser irradiator is positioned at the fourth quadrant and the first quadrant in a direction linearly moving from a standby position, positioned at the third quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the fourth quadrant, and positioned at the second quadrant in a direction which is perpendicular to the first quadrant in order to correct critical dimensions thereof as taught by Oshemkov et al.
In Fig. 3, e.g., Ogawa discloses a treating apparatus comprising, inter alia, a standby port (3) capable of having a laser irradiator (6) positioned at a standby position thereat; and a monitoring target (12) having an origin that appears to match a center of the laser irradiator when seen from a cross-sectional view for the purpose of monitoring the intensity of laser light emitted from the laser irradiator such that an abnormality in output variation of the laser irradiator may be detected early (see, e.g., translation). Note: although not explicitly disclosed, the origin of the monitoring target appears to have a center matching a center of the laser irradiator when seen from a cross-sectional view illustrated in Fig. 3, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to provide the orientation, wherein the courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a standby port capable of having the laser irradiator positioned at a standby position thereat; and a monitoring target having an origin matching a center of the laser irradiator when seen from above or from a cross-sectional view in order to monitor the intensity of laser light emitted from the laser irradiator such that an abnormality in output variation of the laser irradiator may be detected early as taught by Ogawa.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Kim et al., the controller is configured to control the heater/the heating unit such that the laser irradiator is moved from the standby position to an irradiation position corresponding to the second pattern position at the first quadrant, and the laser light is irradiated to the second pattern from the irradiation position. Oshemkov et al. also discloses a controller (38).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Kim et al., Oshemkov et al. discloses movement of the laser irradiator in two-dimensional translational (i.e. linear) motion that appears to be horizontal to ground and allows for positioning the laser irradiator with areas of the mask, such that it would have been obvious to use the driver of Kim et al. to accomplish the movement as claimed. Although, not explicitly taught it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have provided the two dimensional translational direction in two perpendicular directions and horizontal to ground and to have used complementary rotation of the support unit in tandem therewith in order to minimize movement amounts and movement over unnecessary areas of the mask from the standby position and the irradiation position as a way of providing the variable treatment parameters (see, e.g., paras. 70, 93, 103). Additionally, the courts have ruled that 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is also noted that Kim et al. discloses horizontal movement of the irradiator as detailed above.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Oshemkov et al., Oshemkov et al. disclose the first quadrant, the second quadrant, the third quadrant, and the fourth quadrant are sequentially positioned in a counter clockwise direction. See above annotation.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Oshemkov et al., Kim et al. teach a liquid supply/liquid supply unit (a nozzle [381], a fixing body [382], a rotation shaft [386], and a rotation member [388]) configured to supply a treating liquid to a substrate supported on the support unit; and a container (320) including the support and the container providing a recollecting path (e.g., 322b, 324b and 326b)) for recollecting the treating liquid; and wherein the support unit support the substrate n the treating space.
With respect to claim 10, in modified Oshemkov et al., Oshemkov et al. teach the controller configured to control the heater/heating unit such that a critical dimension of the first pattern and a critical dimension of the second pattern is minimized by irradiating laser light with respect to the second pattern, either directly or indirectly – e.g., using CD variation correction method (see, e.g. abstract, Fig. 5 and accompanying text).
With respect to claim 11, in modified Oshemkov et al., the first pattern provided to each cell may be considered a monitoring pattern of an exposing pattern formed at a cell, and the second pattern may be considered a condition setting pattern of the mask treating apparatus (see, e.g. abstract, Fig. 5 and accompanying text). Additionally, regarding the article worked upon by the apparatus (i.e., the mask) and intended uses of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the overall claimed including a controller being configured to control rotation of the support unit and control of the heating unit such that the laser irradiator is moved from the standby position to the irradiation position as set forth in claim language and further comprising a standby port having the laser irradiator positioned at the standby position, and wherein a monitoring target having an origin matching a center of the laser irradiator when seen from above is provided at the standby port, and the fourth quadrant, and the fourth quadrant corresponding to an area in which the sum of a movement amount in the first direction and a movement amount in the second direction of the laser irradiator by the driver of the heating unit controlled by controller is minimized from the standby position to the irradiation position. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to prior art rejections of claims 1-3 and 8-11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed above, Ogawa et al. disclose the newly added subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPs 6042738, 6562248, 6949147 disclose ion beam and/or laser processing of a mask. USP Pubs. 2022/0113619 and 2022/02835512 disclose measuring and treating critical dimensions of a mask using a laser. USP Pubs. 2008/0176004 and 2019/0043741 disclose substrate treating apparatus with coating, laser irradiation, and/or stand-by areas subject matter
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, 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.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights