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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on March 17, 2026 was received. Claims 1 and 13 were amended and claim 2 was cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued December 18, 2025.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 13 is withdrawn because Applicant amended the claim to fix the typo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Song et al. (KR 101318212, translation filed 12/18/2025) in view of Pun et al. on claims 1-9 and 15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. in view of Pun et al. and Han (KR 20140095811, attached translation used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1: Song et al. teaches an inkjet device comprising a plate (110) which is a stage in which a substrate is installed, a rail block (310) which is a substrate mover that moves the substrate in a longitudinal direction of the plate (110), a gripper (300) which is a processor that moves in the longitudinal direction together with the rail block (310), and wherein the gripper (300) includes a suction hole portion (330) (pars. 18 and 20-21, figures 3 and 6). Song et al. fails to explicitly teach that the substrate mover moves the substrate in a first direction.
However, Pun et al. teaches a manipulator (412) which is a similar substrate mover that moves the substrate in a first direction (126), for the benefit of compensating for mispositioning (par. 51, figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rail block (310) of Song et al. to move in a first direction, as taught by Pun et al., because Pun et al. teaches that this helps compensate for mispositioning (par. 51, figure 5).
Song et al. further teaches detecting defects for a repair process (par. 2), but fails to explicitly teach an inkjet printer disposed on the stage.
However, Pun et al. further teaches an inkjet print assembly (104) disposed on the stage, for the benefit of applying microscopic droplets on the substrate (par. 27, figure 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange an inkjet printer on the plate (110) of Song et al., as taught by Pun et al., Because Pun et al. teaches that this helps beneficially apply microscopic droplets to the substrate (par. 27, figure 1).
Song et al. shows that the suction hole portion (330) is arranged to grip the side surface of the substrate (10) such that it is neither above nor below the substrate (10) and therefore Song et al. and Pun et al. fail to explicitly disclose that it is disposed above the substrate (10) and below the inkjet head. However, Han discloses a similar substrate supporting apparatus in which a chucking unit (200’) includes a plurality of suction holes (210’) arranged above the surface of the substrate (S) in order to grip the substrate (S) to help align it as it moves along the air cushioned support plate (110’) (pages 7-8, figures 18-19). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use suction holes (210’) arranged above the substrate like in those of Han for the device of Song et al. because Han teaches that this is one of a number of different functionally equivalent mechanisms for gripping a substrate as it travels over an air plate (see figures 3-26) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 3: Song et al. further teaches the gripper (300) includes first and second grippers (300) disposed opposite to each other with the substrate (10) therebetween in the first direction (i.e., width direction of the plate 110) (figure 3).
Regarding claim 4: Song et al. further teaches first and second suction portions (330)
disposed in the first and second grippers (300), respectively, (pars. 20-21, see figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 5: Song et al. further shows the first and second suction portions (330) of each gripper (300) extend in a second direction (i.e., longitudinal direction of plate 110) which is orthogonal to the first direction (i.e., width direction of plate 110) (figure 3).
Regarding claim 6: Song et al. further shows each of a width of the first and second suction portions (330) in the second direction (i.e., longitudinal direction of plate 110) is greater than a width of the substrate in the second direction (i.e., longitudinal direction of plate 110) (figure 3).
Regarding claim 7: Song et al. in view of Pun et al. and Han as discussed above further shows that the first and second suction portions (330) of each gripper (300) would be disposed between the plate (110) of Song and the inkjet head in the prior art combination in a third (vertical) direction perpendicular to a surface of plate (110) of Song, since Song shows each suction portion (330) grips the side surface of the substrate (figures 3, 6) and in the combination Han teaches that they grip the top surface of the substrate (10) (Han figures 18-19), the substrate (10) clearly being above the plate (110).
Regarding claim 8: Song et al. in view of Pun et al. and Han as discussed above further shows that the first and second suction portions (330) of each gripper (300) would be disposed between the substrate (10) of Song and the inkjet head in the prior art combination in a third (vertical) direction perpendicular to a surface of plate (110) of Song (see Han figures 18-19).
Regarding claims 9 and 15: Song further teaches that the plate (110) includes a plurality of air holes (120) (par. 18, figure 3).
Claims 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al., Pun et al. and Han as applied to claims 1, 3-9 and 15 above and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2019/0131156).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16-17: Song does not explicitly teach that the rail block (310) includes an additional suction portion, wherein the third suction portion extends in the first direction.
However, Seo et al. teaches a suction mover (130a) which is a substrate mover having a suction pad (132a) which can be considered a third suction portion, wherein the suction pad (132a) extends in the X-direction (first direction; i.e., width direction of plate 110), for the benefit of aligning the substrate (pars. 22, 30- 31, figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a third suction portion with the substrate mover of Song, as taught by Seo et al. because Seo et al. teaches that this helps improve the alignment of the substrate (pars. 3-5).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 18-20: Song et al. does not explicitly teach that the rail block (310) includes two additional substrate movers disposed opposite to each other with the substrate therebetween in the second direction (i.e., longitudinal direction of the plate 110) orthogonal to the first direction (width direction of the plate 110).
However, Seo et al. teaches two suction movers (130a,b) which are substrate movers disposed opposite to each other with the substrate therebetween in a second direction (i.e., longitudinal direction of the plate 110), wherein the two suction movers (130a,b) include suction pads (132a,b) which can be considered fourth and fifth suction portions, respectively; wherein each of the fourth and fifth suction portions (132a,b) extend in the X-direction (first direction; i.e., width direction of stage 110), for the benefit of aligning the substrate (pars. 22, 30-31, figures 2-4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the suction movers of Seo et al. with the apparatus of Song et al. because Seo et al. teaches that this helps improve the alignment of the substrate (pars. 3-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Song et al. does not show the suction portion as being above the substrate, and rather on the side of the substrate such that it is at the same height.
In response:
While Applicant is correct that the suction holes themselves are meant to grip the side surface of the glass (10) of Song et al., part of the surface of the mechanism having the suction holes (330) does indeed extend above the glass (10) (see Song et al. figure 3), which could still read on the claimed “suction portion”, which remains broad. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the previous rejections have been withdrawn and replaced by new rejections citing the Han reference which does teach arranging a chucking mechanism with suction holes above the substrate in order to grip the substrate, which clearly reads on the claim limitation, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to this newly cited reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
8/19/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights