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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 16, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argued in the remarks filed June 3, 2036 that the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest a home port with a housing, a profile measuring member, a power measuring member, and a light splitting member as recited in claim 1 which were the limitations of cancelled claim 3. Applicant’s arguments were persuasive and necessitated the new prior art rejections recited below.
Claim Interpretation
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:
Moving unit which is recited in claims 1, 4-9, 16, and 18-20 where moving is the functional language as in moving the laser beam between a process position and a standby position and unit is the generic placeholder.
Profile measuring member as recited in claims 1, 4-8, 16, and 18-20 where profile measuring is the functional language and member is the generic placeholder
Power measuring member as recited in claims 1, 4-9, 16, and 18-20 where the power measuring is the functional language and member is the generic placeholder
Light splitting member as recited in claims 1, 4-9, 16, and 18-20 where light splitting is the functional language and member is the generic placeholder
Lifting member as recited in claims 8 and 20 where lifting as in moving the housing is the functional language and member is the generic place holder
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.
The moving unit is interpreted as element 4520 which may include a driver 4522, a shaft 4524, and a moving member 4526 according to the original specification paragraph 4 page 23
The profile measuring member is interpreted as element 4650 according to the last paragraph of page 30 of the original specification and may include an attenuation filter 4562.
The power measuring member is interpreted as element 4660 according to of the original specification and is any structural equivalent of a power detector
The light splitting member is interpreted as element 4670 according to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the original specification and is interpreted as a beam splitter or any structural equivalent thereof.
The lifting member is interpreted as element 470 according to paragraph 1 of page 32 of the original specification which maybe a driver or structural equivalent thereof that vertically moves the housing
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 location of the power measuring member and profile measuring member as recited in claims 5 and 18.
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, 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, 8, 9, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (KR 10-20180127150 using the Machine Generated English Translation provided by applicant with the IDS of May 29, 2024) in view of Yamaoka Yutaka (JP 2008122202 using the Machine Generated English provided by applicant with the IDS of November 17, 2025).
Regarding claim 1: The prior art of Kim et al teaches a substrate treating apparatus, comprising:
a support unit (spin chuck 342) is configured to support and rotate a substrate in a treatment space;
a liquid supply unit 380 is configured to supply a liquid to the substrate supported by the support unit;
a laser unit including a laser irradiation unit 390 which irradiates configured to irradiate laser light 391 to the substrate supported by the support unit;
a moving unit (bottom support part 393) configured to moving move the laser unit between a process position in which the laser light is configured to be irradiated to the substrate and the standby position, (see the description of the laser irradiated region 391 moving between a process and standby position), see Fig. 2 of Kim et al below.
PNG
media_image1.png
770
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art of Kim et al teaches a laser investigation unit 390 with supporting parts 392, 393 and a laser irradiation region but fails to specifically teaches a home port wherein the home port includes:
a housing having an inner space;
a profile measuring member installed in the housing and configured to measure a focal distribution of the laser light;
a power measuring member installed in the housing and configured to measure the power of the laser light; and
a light splitting member configured to split the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
The prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka teaches a laser beam observation device 1 with a home port wherein the home port includes:
a housing 1 with having an inner space (determination section 11);
a profile measuring member (CCD camera 15) installed in the housing and configured to measure a focal distribution of the laser light;
a power measuring member (power detector 16) installed in the housing and configured to measure the power of the laser light; and
a light splitting member (beam splitter 17) configured to split the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member. See Figs. 1 and 2 of the prior art of modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka below.
PNG
media_image2.png
766
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The motivation to modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka is to provide a structure that measures the beam profile of a laser beam but also the intensity with the beam observation device (home port). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka in order to enhance the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the laser.
Regarding claim 4: The prior art of Kim et al fails to teach wherein a surface of the light splitting member facing the power measuring member is anti-reflectively coated.
The prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka teaches a light splitting member (beam splitter 17) which uses a plate that is extremely transparent to the laser light, but is obliquely to the laser and transmits and reflect light at the interface between the air and the beam splitter 17. The reflected light of the laser incident on the CCD camera 15 is preferable small. Providing an anti-reflective coating is a known way to reduce the reflected light on the surface of the beam splitter. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al and Yamaoka Yutaka to ensure that the reflected light is reduced as suggested by Yamaoka Yutaka.
Regarding claim 8: The substrate treating apparatus of claim 1,further comprising: a lifting member 360 of Kim et al installed on a lower end of the home port, the lifting member configured to move the housing (cup 320).
Regarding claim 9: The prior art of Kim et al fails to teach the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter configured to filter a specific wavelength of the laser light. See the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka especially [0027] of the specification where the laser light incident to CCD camera 15 is smaller in output by beam splitter 17, but it is also provided with filter 29 where the incident laser light is further substrate (this is conventionally achieved with a filter at a specific wavelength. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the apparatus of Kim et al by suggestions of the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka to provide filters for specific wavelength to enhance the profile measuring technique.
Regarding claim 16: See the prior art of Kim et al which teaches a substrate treating apparatus for treating a mask including a plurality of cells (the type of substrate is interpreted as a matter of an intended use as the apparatus is what it is an not what it does since the workpiece worked upon is not structurally part of the apparatus), the substrate treating apparatus comprising: treating container (see cups 320, 322, 324, 326) having a treatment space; a support unit 342 is configured to support and rotate the mask in the treatment space; a liquid supply unit 380 is configured to supply a liquid to the mask supported by the support unit; a laser unit including a laser irradiation unit 390 configured to irradiate laser light to the mask supported by the support unit; a laser unit including a laser irradiation unit 390 which irradiates configured to irradiate laser light 391 to the substrate supported by the support unit; a moving unit (bottom support part 393) configured to moving move the laser unit between a process position in which the laser light is configured to be irradiated to the substrate and the standby position, (see the description of the laser irradiated region 391 moving between a process and standby position), see Fig. 2 of Kim et al above.
The prior art of Kim et al teaches a laser investigation unit 390 with supporting parts 392, 393 and a laser irradiation region but fails to specifically teaches a home port wherein the home port includes:
a housing having an inner space;
a profile measuring member installed in the housing and configured to measure a focal distribution of the laser light;
a power measuring member installed in the housing and configured to measure the power of the laser light; and
a light splitting member configured to split the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member.
The prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka teaches a laser beam observation device 1 with a home port wherein the home port includes:
a housing 1 with having an inner space (determination section 11);
a profile measuring member (CCD camera 15) installed in the housing and configured to measure a focal distribution of the laser light;
a power measuring member (power detector 16) installed in the housing and configured to measure the power of the laser light; and
a light splitting member (beam splitter 17) configured to split the laser light incident from an upper portion of the housing to the profile measuring member and the power measuring member. See Figs. 1 and 2 of the prior art of modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka above in the rejection of claim 1. The motivation to modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka is to provide a structure that measures the beam profile of a laser beam but also the intensity with the beam observation device (home port). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the prior art of Kim et al with a home port as suggested by the prior art of Yamaoka Yutaka in order to enhance the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the laser.
Regarding claim 20: The substrate treating apparatus of claim 16,further comprising: a lifting member installed at a lower end of the home port, the lifting member configured to move the housing, wherein the profile measuring member further includes an optical filter for filtering configured to filter a specific wavelength of the laser light. See the rejection of claims 8 and 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oh Seung Hoon et al (KR 20190037479) teaches a substrate treatment apparatus, a laser irradiation unit 390b comprising a beam splitter 391, laser 397, and a housing 394 see Fig. 8.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYLVIA MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-1438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 pm.
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.
/SYLVIA MACARTHUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights