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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 06/15/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-2 have been amended; claim 11-20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 06/15/2026 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 04/01/2026, except for the limitation “stage unit”. See details in the Claim Interpretation section below.
Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 06/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (see details on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 06/15/2026)
Applicant alleged: “The Examiner states on pages 2-8 that claim limitations "stage unit," "laser moving unit," "target moving unit," "target rotationally-moving unit," "target vertically- moving unit" "pressure adjusting unit," and "laser aligning unit," have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because they uses a generic placeholder "unit" coupled with functional languages without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. However, Applicant respectfully disagrees … Because the claims recite structural terms modified by specific mechanical descriptors and further defined by their spatial relationships, they provide sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested application of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) to be precluded.” – see details on pages 7-8 of the Remarks dated 06/15/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees because 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.
In this case, the limitations “laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view” in claim 1 (lines 12-14), “target moving unit moves the stage unit, to which the target is fixed, to the processing position” in claim 2 (lines 2-3) & “target moving unit” in claim 2 (line 2), claim 3 (line 1), claim 6 (line 1), “target rotationally-moving unit which rotates the stage unit around a first axis” in claim 3 (lines 2-3) & “target rotationally-moving unit rotates the stage unit in a way such that the processing surface of the target fixed to the stage unit faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 5 (lines 1-4), “target vertically-moving unit which moves the stage unit in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 6 (lines 2-3), “pressure adjusting unit which adjusts a pressure of the loading area” in claim 7 (line 2), and “laser aligning unit which aligns the laser radiating unit to an alignment position” in claim 9 (lines 2-3), meet the above three-prong test and thus, they will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Specifically,
“laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view” in claim 1 (lines 12-14). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “laser moving unit” will be interpreted as to include “air-bearing” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0014: “the laser moving unit may include an air-bearing”.
“target moving unit moves the stage unit, to which the target is fixed, to the processing position” in claim 2 (lines 2-3) and “target moving unit” in claim 2 (line 2), claim 3 (line 1), claim 6 (line 1). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “moves the stage unit, to which the target is fixed, to the processing position” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target moving unit” will be interpreted as to include “a frame with guide rail, wherein the guide rail is configured to guide the rod to move in vertical direction, wherein the rod can be rotatable around its longitudinal axis” or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1, 2B-2C of the Instant Application [see the target rotationally-moving unit 130 and the target vertically-moving unit 131 in Figs.1, 2B-2C of the Instant Application] and as indicated by Specification Par.0056: “The target moving unit 13 may include a target rotationally-moving unit 130 and a target vertically-moving unit 131.”.
“target rotationally-moving unit which rotates the stage unit around a first axis” in claim 3 (lines 2-3) and “target rotationally-moving unit rotates the stage unit in a way such that the processing surface of the target fixed to the stage unit faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 5 (lines 1-4). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which rotates the stage unit around a first axis” as recited in claim 3, and “rotates the stage unit in a way such that the processing surface of the target fixed to the stage unit faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed” as recited in claim 5 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target rotationally-moving unit” will be interpreted as to include a rotatable rod or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2B of the Instant Application [see the target rotationally-moving unit 130 in Figs.1 & 2B of the Instant Application].
“target vertically-moving unit which moves the stage unit in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 6 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which moves the stage unit in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target vertically-moving unit” will be interpreted as “a frame with guide rail, wherein the guide rail is configured to guide the rod to move in vertical direction” or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2C of the Instant Application [see the target vertically-moving unit 131 in Figs.1 & 2C of the Instant Application].
“pressure adjusting unit which adjusts a pressure of the loading area” in claim 7 (line 2). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which adjusts a pressure of the loading area” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “pressure adjusting unit” will be interpreted as to include “connection pipe and vacuum pump” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0061: “The pressure adjusting unit 15 may include a connection pipe 150 and a vacuum pump 151.”.
“laser aligning unit which aligns the laser radiating unit to an alignment position” in claim 9 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which aligns the laser radiating unit to an alignment position” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “laser aligning unit” will be interpreted as to include slidable block or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2D of the Instant Application [see laser aligning unit 163 in Figs.1 & 2D of the Instant Application].
Since the above claim limitations meet the following three-prong test explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, these claim limitations will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) Claim Interpretation are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) Claim Interpretation for the above limitations will be maintained in this Office Action. See details in the Claim Interpretation section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 06/15/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claims interpretation has been changed.
However, Examiner would like to note that in response to Applicant(s)’ arguments regarding the prior art of record Lee and Machida, Applicant(s)’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding claims 1-6 – see details on pages 8-11 of the Remarks dated 06/15/2026)
Applicant alleged that the prior art of record Lee does not disclose the amended limitations “the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target” and “a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate” as recited in the amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant alleged: “Applicant respectfully notes that Lee is directed to a laser processing apparatus for performing an etching process on a substrate within a vacuum chamber using a movable laser scanner ... As a result, Lee does not disclose all of the claimed elements arranged as in claim 1.” – see details on pages 8-10 of the Remarks dated 06/15/2026.
Applicant further alleged that: “Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that Machida does not cure the deficiencies of Lee noted above with respect to claim 1. More particularly, Applicant respectfully notes that Machida does not disclose a stage unit disposed in the loading area, wherein the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target; and an optical unit disposed outside the chamber, and a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate. Rather, Machida merely discloses a substrate holder (100) with an electrostatic chuck (110) that functions as a mobile carrier configured to be inverted 180 degrees by a rotation mechanism (comprising a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210, and a rotation drive source 230) in a second chamber (R2) and conveyed to a fourth chamber (R4) for a bulk deposition process from a stationary evaporation source (30), while being silent as to the specific structural assembly of the stage body and the chuck plate configured to rigidly fix and maintain the target in a stationary state at a processing position during the physical translation of an external laser radiating unit.” – see details on pages 10-11 of the Remarks dated 06/15/2026.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner would like to note that Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 06/15/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claims interpretation has been changed. In this case, the secondary reference Machida has been added to the rejection of claim 1 to teach the structure of the stage unit configured to “the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target” and “the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate”, see details in the rejection of claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejection section below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Machida does not disclose a stage unit disposed in the loading area, wherein the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target; and an optical unit disposed outside the chamber, and a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate.”, Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant(s)’ amendments to the Claims filed on 06/15/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claims interpretation has been changed.
In this case, Machida properly teaches wherein the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target. Specifically, Machida teaches a substrate holding device (200, Machida Figs.2a-2b): wherein the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “the substrate holder 100 is held by the holder 211 in a state of being mounted so as to be bridged between the two carrier mounting members 210”) comprises a stage body (body of the substrate holder 211, Machida Fig.2b) and a chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) supported by the stage body (body of the substrate holder 211, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “the substrate holder 100 is held by the holder 211 in a state of being mounted so as to be bridged between the two carrier mounting members 210”. Thus, Machida teaches that substrate holder 100 is mechanically held by holder 211 while mounted between two carrier mounting members 210. Thus, holder 211 mechanically supports and retains substrate holder 100, such that substrate holder 100 is supported by the body of holder 211.), and the chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) fixes a fixing surface (fixing surface, see Machida annotated Fig.2b below in the rejection of claim 1) of a target (substrate 10, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 3 – 2nd paragraph teaches: “the substrate 10 is held by the substrate holder 100 by the electrostatic adsorption force”); and the target (substrate 10, Machida Figs. 1 & 2b) is maintained at a processing position (as shown in chamber R4 of Machida Fig.1) within the chamber (chamber R4, Machida Fig.1) by the chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.1) (Machida Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph teaches: “In the fourth chamber R4, a film is formed on the substrate 10 held by the substrate holder 100 via the mask 20.”).
Additionally, in response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lee discloses substantially all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, including an apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus, the apparatus comprising a chamber in which a loading area is defined; a stage unit disposed in the loading area; and an optical unit disposed outside the chamber, wherein the optical unit processes a processing surface of the target, wherein the optical unit comprises: a laser radiating unit which radiates a laser toward the processing surface of the target; and a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the stage unit. It is noted that Lee discloses “a substrate carrier portion (not shown) that grasps and moves a substrate is provided. In this embodiment, an electrostatic chuck (not shown) or a magnetic chuck (not shown) for chucking a substrate may be provided in the substrate carrier unit (not shown).” in the 2nd paragraph on page 4 of the Translated Document of Lee, however, Lee is not specific enough about the structure of the substrate carrier portion, the electrostatic chuck, and the magnetic chuck. Thus, Lee does not explicitly disclose: wherein the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target; and the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate, as required by claim 1. The secondary reference Machida has been added to teach the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target; and the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate. Therefore, in combination, Lee in view of Machida properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claim 1, see detailed rejection of claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the specific structural assembly of the stage body and the chuck plate configured to rigidly fix and maintain the target in a stationary state at a processing position during the physical translation of an external laser radiating unit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the amended claim 1 requires “the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate” while the laser radiating unit is moved along a processing path in a plan view. Claim 1 does not require that the target be “rigidly” fixed or recite a “stationary state” as alleged by the Applicant. Accordingly, those additional restrictions will not be read into the claim. In this case, as explained previously, the primary reference Lee discloses a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the stage unit, and the secondary reference Machida teaches the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate. Therefore, in combination, Lee in view of Machida teaches a laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view while the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate, see detailed rejection of claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Moreover, contrary to Applicant’s assertion that there is no reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does, the Examiner insist the rationale of the combination of Lee and Machida is proper. In the instant case, the purpose of combining Lee and Machida is not defeated, for, at least, the benefit of permitting the orientation of the substrate to be changed without removing the substrate from the holding mechanism or requiring a separate manual handling operation, and thus, facilitate processing operations requiring different substrate orientations. As the obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, MPEP § 2144.01, suggests that “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976)”. As such, Applicant’s argument that there is no reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed invention does, is moot.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art of record Lee and Machida, and the combination of Lee and Machida, are not persuasive. Accordingly, Lee in view of Machida properly teaches all limitations recited in claims 1-6, see detailed rejection of claims 1-6 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 7-10 are the same as those provided for the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6; therefore, the Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 generally applies to the dependent claims 7-10.
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:
“laser moving unit which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view” in claim 1 (lines 12-14). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which moves the laser radiating unit along a processing path in a plan view” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “laser moving unit” will be interpreted as to include “air-bearing” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0014: “the laser moving unit may include an air-bearing”.
“target moving unit moves the stage unit, to which the target is fixed, to the processing position” in claim 2 (lines 2-3) and “target moving unit” in claim 2 (line 2), claim 3 (line 1), claim 6 (line 1). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “moves the stage unit, to which the target is fixed, to the processing position” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target moving unit” will be interpreted as to include “a frame with guide rail, wherein the guide rail is configured to guide the rod to move in vertical direction, wherein the rod can be rotatable around its longitudinal axis” or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1, 2B-2C of the Instant Application [see the target rotationally-moving unit 130 and the target vertically-moving unit 131 in Figs.1, 2B-2C of the Instant Application] and as indicated by Specification Par.0056: “The target moving unit 13 may include a target rotationally-moving unit 130 and a target vertically-moving unit 131.”.
“target rotationally-moving unit which rotates the stage unit around a first axis” in claim 3 (lines 2-3) and “target rotationally-moving unit rotates the stage unit in a way such that the processing surface of the target fixed to the stage unit faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 5 (lines 1-4). These limitations use generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which rotates the stage unit around a first axis” as recited in claim 3, and “rotates the stage unit in a way such that the processing surface of the target fixed to the stage unit faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed” as recited in claim 5 (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target rotationally-moving unit” will be interpreted as to include a rotatable rod or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2B of the Instant Application [see the target rotationally-moving unit 130 in Figs.1 & 2B of the Instant Application].
“target vertically-moving unit which moves the stage unit in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed” in claim 6 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which moves the stage unit in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “target vertically-moving unit” will be interpreted as “a frame with guide rail, wherein the guide rail is configured to guide the rod to move in vertical direction” or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2C of the Instant Application [see the target vertically-moving unit 131 in Figs.1 & 2C of the Instant Application].
“pressure adjusting unit which adjusts a pressure of the loading area” in claim 7 (line 2). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which adjusts a pressure of the loading area” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “pressure adjusting unit” will be interpreted as to include “connection pipe and vacuum pump” or equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0061: “The pressure adjusting unit 15 may include a connection pipe 150 and a vacuum pump 151.”.
“laser aligning unit which aligns the laser radiating unit to an alignment position” in claim 9 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “which aligns the laser radiating unit to an alignment position” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “laser aligning unit” will be interpreted as to include slidable block or equivalents, as shown in Figs.1 & 2D of the Instant Application [see laser aligning unit 163 in Figs.1 & 2D of the Instant Application].
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 § 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102243721 B1, Published 04/23/2021, previously cited) in view of Machida (JP 2021077782 A, Published 05/20/2021, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an apparatus (apparatus 100, Lee Fig.2) for manufacturing a display apparatus (Lee Translated Document on page 2 paragraphs 1-5 discloses the invention is for manufacturing a display apparatus), the apparatus (apparatus 100, Lee Fig.2) comprising
a chamber (vacuum chamber 110, Lee Fig.2) in which a loading area (loading area, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) is defined;
a stage unit (“substrate carrier portion (not shown)”, see Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) disposed in the loading area (loading area, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) (Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2 discloses: “Inside the vacuum chamber 110, a substrate carrier portion (not shown) that grasps and moves a substrate is provided.”, and the vacuum chamber 110 defines the loading area, as explained previously and see the loading area in Lee annotated Fig.2 below; therefore, the substrate carrier portion disposed in the loading area); and
an optical unit (optical unit includes the laser scanner 120, the scanner moving unit 130 and the beam path changing unit 140, Lee Fig.2) disposed outside the chamber (vacuum chamber 110, Lee Fig.2), wherein the optical unit (optical unit includes the laser scanner 120, the scanner moving unit 130 and the beam path changing unit 140, Lee Fig.2) processes a processing surface (processing surface, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) of the target (substrate, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) (Lee Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph from the bottom discloses: “As shown in FIGS. 2 to 10, the top-down substrate etching apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment includes a vacuum chamber 110 in which an etching process is performed on a substrate, and is disposed outside the vacuum chamber 110. A plurality of laser scanners that are disposed to be spaced apart from each other and perform an etching process by emitting a laser beam to a substrate in the vacuum chamber 110 through a chamber window 111 provided in the vacuum chamber 110 (120, a scanner movement unit 130 that supports the laser scanner 120 and moves the laser scanner 120 in the first axis direction (X), and is disposed adjacent to the laser scanner 120 and is a laser oscillator.”),
wherein the optical unit (optical unit includes the laser scanner 120, the scanner moving unit 130 and the beam path changing unit 140, Lee Fig.2) comprises:
a laser radiating unit (laser scanner 120, Lee Fig.2) which radiates a laser toward the processing surface (processing surface, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) of the target (substrate, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) (Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 5 discloses: “the laser beam emitted from the laser scanner 120 can be irradiated to the lower portion of the substrate”, and Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 6 discloses: “The laser scanner 120 receives a laser beam oscillated from a laser oscillator (not shown) coupled to the support frame P through the beam path changing unit 140 and emits it to the substrate.”; therefore, the laser scanner 120 radiates laser beam toward the processing surface of the substrate); and
a laser moving unit (moving unit 130, Lee Fig.2) which moves the laser radiating unit (laser scanner 120, Lee Fig.2) along a processing path (X direction, Lee Figs.3-4) in a plan view (X direction is in the plan view, see X direction in Lee Figs.3-4) (Lee Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph from the bottom discloses: “a scanner movement unit 130 that supports the laser scanner 120 and moves the laser scanner 120 in the first axis direction (X)”) while the target (substrate, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) is maintained at a processing position (processing position is the position at which the substrate is held for optical processing, i.e., with the substrate’s processing surface [see Lee annotated Fig.2 below] positioned to receive the laser beam from the laser scanner 120) within the chamber (vacuum chamber 110, Lee Fig.2) by the stage unit (“substrate carrier portion (not shown)”, see Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) (Lee Translated Document on page 3 – second paragraph from the bottom discloses: “As shown in FIGS. 2 to 10, the top-down substrate etching apparatus 100 according to the present embodiment includes a vacuum chamber 110 in which an etching process is performed on a substrate, and is disposed outside the vacuum chamber 110. A plurality of laser scanners that are disposed to be spaced apart from each other and perform an etching process by emitting a laser beam to a substrate in the vacuum chamber 110 through a chamber window 111 provided in the vacuum chamber 110 (120, a scanner movement unit 130 that supports the laser scanner 120 and moves the laser scanner 120 in the first axis direction (X), and is disposed adjacent to the laser scanner 120 and is a laser oscillator. A beam path changing unit 140 that receives the laser beam oscillated in (not shown) and changes the path of the laser beam in the first axis direction (X) and transmits it to the laser scanner 120, and the scanner moving unit 130 And a support frame P for supporting the beam path changing unit 140 and a control unit (not shown) electrically connected to the scanner moving unit 130 to control the scanner moving unit 130.”, and Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 4 discloses: “Accordingly, the laser scanner 120 is disposed in the lower region of the vacuum chamber 110, and at that position, the laser beam is irradiated to the substrate through the chamber window 111 to perform an etching process.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
984
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Lee discloses “a substrate carrier portion (not shown) that grasps and moves a substrate is provided. In this embodiment, an electrostatic chuck (not shown) or a magnetic chuck (not shown) for chucking a substrate may be provided in the substrate carrier unit (not shown).” in the 2nd paragraph on page 4 of the Translated Document of Lee, however, Lee is not specific enough about the structure of the substrate carrier portion, the electrostatic chuck, and the magnetic chuck. Thus, Lee does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the stage unit comprises a stage body and a chuck plate supported by the stage body, and the chuck plate fixes a fixing surface of a target; and
the target is maintained at a processing position within the chamber by the chuck plate
Machida teaches an apparatus (Machida Figs.1-2) having a substrate holding device (200, Machida Figs.2a-2b):
wherein the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “the substrate holder 100 is held by the holder 211 in a state of being mounted so as to be bridged between the two carrier mounting members 210”) comprises a stage body (body of the substrate holder 211, Machida Fig.2b) and a chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) supported by the stage body (body of the substrate holder 211, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “the substrate holder 100 is held by the holder 211 in a state of being mounted so as to be bridged between the two carrier mounting members 210”. Thus, Machida teaches that substrate holder 100 is mechanically held by holder 211 while mounted between two carrier mounting members 210. Thus, holder 211 mechanically supports and retains substrate holder 100, such that substrate holder 100 is supported by the body of holder 211.), and the chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) fixes a fixing surface (fixing surface, Machida annotated Fig.2b below) of a target (substrate 10, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 3 – 2nd paragraph teaches: “the substrate 10 is held by the substrate holder 100 by the electrostatic adsorption force”); and
the target (substrate 10, Machida Figs. 1 & 2b) is maintained at a processing position (as shown in chamber R4 of Machida Fig.1) within the chamber (chamber R4, Machida Fig.1) by the chuck plate (substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.1) (Machida Translated Document on page 3 – last paragraph teaches: “In the fourth chamber R4, a film is formed on the substrate 10 held by the substrate holder 100 via the mask 20.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
670
983
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Lee substrate carrier portion (see Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) with the Machida substrate holding device (see the Machida substrate holding device 200 in Machida Fig.2b), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of holding, moving, and transferring the substrate. MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, the modification would permit the orientation of the substrate to be changed without removing the substrate from the holding mechanism or requiring a separate manual handling operation, and thus, facilitate processing operations requiring different substrate orientations.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, and also teach further comprising:
a target moving unit (target moving unit includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240 and “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion”, Machida Fig.2b & Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 & last paragraph; specifically, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”; as incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 because of the substitution of the Lee substrate carrier portion (see Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) with the Machida substrate holding device (see the Machida substrate holding device 200 in Machida Fig.2b)) disposed in the loading area (loading area, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) (it is noted that by substituting the Lee substrate carrier portion (see Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 2) with the Machida substrate holding device (see the Machida substrate holding device 200 in Machida Fig.2b), as explained and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1; in combination, Lee in view of Machida teaches the target moving unit disposed in the loading area because Lee discloses substrate carrier is holding the substrate in the loading area, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1), wherein the target moving unit (target moving unit includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240 and “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion”, Machida Fig.2b & Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 & last paragraph; specifically, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”) moves the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Fig.2b) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 paragraphs 3-5 teaches the substrate holder 100 and the holder 211 attached to the carrier mounting member 210 are rotated by the rotation shaft 220, furthermore, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “the substrate holder 100 is held by the holder 211 in a state of being mounted so as to be bridged between the two carrier mounting members 210”; and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”), to which the target (substrate, Lee annotated Fig.2 below) is fixed, to the processing position (processing position is the position at which the substrate is held for optical processing, i.e., with the substrate’s processing surface [see Lee annotated Fig.2 below] positioned to receive the laser beam from the laser scanner 120).
PNG
media_image1.png
984
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and Lee in view of Machida also teaches:
wherein the target moving unit (target moving unit includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240 and “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion”, Machida Fig.2b & Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 & last paragraph; specifically, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”) comprises a target rotationally-moving unit (rotation mechanism includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240, Machida Fig.2b, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”) which rotates the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) around a first axis (axis of rotation of the substrate holder 100, see the rotation of the substrate holder 100 in Machida Fig.1 in chamber R2, it is noted that the axis of rotation is direction into the page) (Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”, and the holder 211 is attached to the carrier mounting member 210; therefore, stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100 rotated by the rotation mechanism).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 3, and Lee in view of Machida also teaches:
wherein the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) fixes the fixing surface (fixing surface, Machida annotated Fig.1 below) of the target (substrate 10, Machida Fig.1) in a state in which the processing surface (processing surface, Machida annotated Fig.1 below) of the target (substrate 10, Machida Fig.1) faces a direction in which the laser is directed (It is noted that the primary reference Lee shows the laser is directed from bottom to top in vertical direction, see Lee annotated Fig.2 in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Lee in view of Machida teaches the substrate holder 100 fixes the fixing surface of the substrate 10 in a state in which the processing surface of the substrate 10 faces a direction in which the laser is directed).
PNG
media_image3.png
724
1375
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 4, and Lee in view of Machida also teaches:
wherein the target rotationally-moving unit (rotation mechanism includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240, Machida Fig.2b, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”) rotates the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) in a way such that the processing surface (processing surface, Machida annotated Fig.1 below) of the target (substrate 10, Machida Fig.1) fixed to the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed (It is noted that the primary reference Lee shows the laser is directed from bottom to top in vertical direction, see Lee annotated Fig.2 in the rejection of claim 1 above. In this case, since Machida teaches rotation mechanism is configured to rotate the substrate holder 100, holder 211 and the substrate 10 together, as explained in details in the rejections of claims 2-3 above, and as shown in chamber R2 in Machida Fig.1. Thus, the rotation mechanism capable of rotating the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100 in a way such that the processing surface of the substrate 10 fixed to the substrate holder 100 faces a direction opposite to the direction in which the laser is directed, in which the processing surface faces upward because the laser is directed from bottom to top in vertical direction. It is further noted that the Machida annotated Fig.1 below is used for illustration purposes only to show that the rotation mechanism includes rotation shaft 220 capable of rotating the substrate holder 100 in a way such that the processing surface of the substrate 10 fixed to the substrate holder 100 faces away from the bottom of the chamber R2).
PNG
media_image4.png
724
1375
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and Lee in view of Machida also teaches:
wherein the target moving unit (target moving unit includes rotation shaft 220, rotation drive source 230, bearing 240 and “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion”, Machida Fig.2b & Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 & last paragraph; specifically, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The substrate holding device 200 according to the present embodiment includes a rotation mechanism that rotates the substrate holding body 100 about a straight line parallel to the film forming surface of the substrate 10. The rotation mechanism includes a rotation shaft 220, a carrier mounting member 210 fixed to the rotation shaft 220, a rotation drive source 230 such as a motor for rotating the rotation shaft 220, and a bearing 240 of the rotation shaft 220.”, and Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”) further comprises a target vertically-moving unit (“a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion”, Machida Fig.2b & Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph; specifically, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – last paragraph teaches: “the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a ball screw and a motor that rotates the ball screw, and the holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated by a so-called rack and pinion”) which moves the stage unit (stage unit includes the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100, Machida Figs.2a-2b) in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed (It is noted that the primary reference Lee shows the laser is directed from bottom to top in vertical direction, see Lee annotated Fig.2 below. In this case, Machida Translated Document on page 6 – paragraph 5 teaches: “The carrier mounting member 210 is integrated with a holder (clamp) 211 that mechanically holds the substrate holder 100 and a holder (clamp) 212 that mechanically holds the substrate 10 held by the substrate holder 100. It is provided as a target. These holders 211 and 212 can be reciprocated so as to approach or move away from the mounting surface of the substrate holder 100 on the carrier mounting member 210 (reciprocating in the vertical direction in FIG. 2B). The substrate holder 100 and the substrate 10 can be fixed to the carrier mounting member 210 by being configured to be movable)”; therefore, “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion” is configured to move the holder 211 up and down in vertical direction, so that the holder 211 moves the substrate holder 100 up and down in vertical direction. Thus, in combination, Lee in view of Machida teaches “a ball screw and a motor” or “rack and pinion” capable of moving the holder 211 and the substrate holder 100 in a direction opposite to a direction in which the laser is directed).
PNG
media_image1.png
984
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Lee Embodiment Fig.2 in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Lee Embodiment Fig.2 also discloses further comprising:
a window (chamber window 111, Lee Fig.2) disposed on one side of the chamber (bottom side of the vacuum chamber 110, Lee Fig.2), which is between the laser radiating unit (laser scanner 120, Lee Fig.2) and the stage unit (stage unit of Lee in view of Machida, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the window (chamber window 111, Lee Fig.2) allows the laser to pass therethrough (Lee Translated Document on page 4 – paragraph 1 discloses: “A chamber window 111 is provided on the bottom of the vacuum chamber 110. The chamber window 111 is a window through which a laser beam of a specific wavelength can pass, and allows the laser beam from the laser scanner 120 disposed outside the vacuum chamber 110 to be transmitted into the vacuum chamber 110.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
984
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee Embodiment Fig.2 in view of Machida does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the window comprises a transparent material
Lee Embodiment Fig.1 (Lee Fig.1) teaches:
wherein the window (transparent chamber window 20, Lee Fig.1 & Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 10) comprises a transparent material (Lee Translated Document on page 2 – paragraph 10 discloses: “The substrate G is disposed inside the vacuum chamber, while the laser scanner 10 is disposed outside the vacuum chamber, and a laser beam is irradiated onto the substrate G at that position. At this time, a transparent chamber window 20 through which the laser beam passes is interposed on the wall surface of the vacuum chamber in which the laser scanner 10 is disposed.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Lee Embodiment Fig.2 chamber window (see the Lee chamber window 111 in Lee Fig.2) with the Lee Embodiment Fig.1 chamber window (see the Lee chamber window 20 in Lee Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of allowing the laser beam to pass through the chamber window to process surface of the substrate positioned inside of the chamber while help to maintain the vacuum environment inside of the chamber for processing substrate. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Lee also discloses further comprising:
wherein the optical unit (optical unit includes the laser scanner 120, the scanner moving unit 130 and the beam path changing unit 140, Lee Fig.2) further comprises a laser aligning unit (“mover unit (not shown)” and “stator portion (not shown)”, Lee Translated Document on page 5 – paragraphs 8-9) which aligns the laser radiating unit (laser scanner 120, Lee Fig.2) to an alignment position (alignment position as shown in Lee Fig.2) (the mover unit and the stator portion align the laser scanner 120 to alignment position because Lee Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 4 discloses: “The scanner moving unit 130 according to the present embodiment is a moving block for a plurality of scanners to which each of the plurality of laser scanners 120 is individually coupled, as shown in detail in FIGS. 3 to 4 and 7 to 9 The unit 131 is connected to the scanner moving block unit 131 and connected to the scanner moving guide unit 133 for guiding the movement of the scanner moving block unit 131 and the scanner moving block unit 131 And it includes a scanner moving driving unit 135 for moving the moving block unit 131 for the scanner.”, Lee Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 6 discloses: “The scanner moving block unit 131 is connected to the scanner moving guide unit 133 so as to be slidably moved.”, Lee Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 8 discloses: “The scanner moving driving unit 135 interacts with a mover unit (not shown) that is individually coupled to each scanner moving block unit 131, and the scanner moving block unit 131 by interacting with the mover unit (not shown). It includes a stator portion (not shown) for generating a propulsive force by electromagnetic force.”, and Lee Translated Document on page 5 – paragraph 9 discloses: “The mover unit (not shown) is individually coupled to each of the scanner moving block units 131. A plurality of stator portions (not shown) are provided and disposed along the longitudinal direction (ie, the first axis direction) of the moving guide portion 133 for the scanner. This stator part (not shown) interacts with the mover part (not shown) to generate a propulsion force by electromagnetic force in each of the moving block parts 131 for scanners. In this embodiment, the stator part (not shown) is provided with a permanent magnet and the movable part (not shown) is provided with an electromagnet.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102243721 B1, previously cited) in view of Machida (JP 2021077782 A, previously cited), and further in view of Um (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0069879 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising:
a pressure adjusting unit which adjusts a pressure of the loading area.
Um teaches an apparatus (100, Um Fig.1) for manufacturing a display apparatus (Um Abstract teaches: “Provided are an apparatus and method of manufacturing a display apparatus.”), comprising:
a pressure adjusting unit (pressure adjusting unit 191 includes connection pipe 191-1 and pump 191-2, Um Fig.1) which adjusts a pressure of the loading area (chamber 110 defines loading area, see chamber 110 in Um Fig.1) (Um Par.0059 teaches: “The pressure adjusting unit 191 may include a connection pipe 191-1 that is connected with the chamber 110, and a pump 191-2 that is installed in the connection pipe 191-1. In this case, the pressure adjusting unit 191 may maintain air pressure, or may maintain a vacuum state, in the chamber 110.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lee in view of Machida, by adding pressure adjusting unit which adjusts a pressure of the loading area, as taught by Um, in order to maintain the vacuum environment inside of the chamber, and compensate for leaks or outgassing during laser processing. The pressure adjusting unit maintains a consistent vacuum level for quality, and enables process-specific, low-pressure environments.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 102243721 B1, previously cited) in view of Machida (JP 2021077782 A, previously cited), and further in view of Manens et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0033970 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Machida teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the laser moving unit comprises an air-bearing.
Manens teaches a laser processing apparatus (400, Manens Fig.15):
wherein the laser moving unit (X laser stage 418, Fig.15) comprises an air- bearing (Manens Par.0051 teaches “An X laser stage 418 can be used to provide for X-direction movement of laser assemblies 420 during laser scribing of a workpiece. The X laser stage can include a linear motor and one or more air bearings for travel of a laser assembly support 422 along a support rail 424.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lee in view of Machida, by adding air bearing to the laser moving unit, as taught by Manens, in order to provide frictionless, vibration-free, and high-precision motion for the laser radiating unit, which is crucial for achieving sub-micron straightness and repeatability. The air bearing eliminates wear, enables high-speed movement, and ensures consistent and high-accuracy laser processing.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Kobayashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0286447 A1) discloses an apparatus for fabricating an organic light emitting diode display device including a chamber, a mask disposed in the chamber to mount a substrate on the upper surface thereof and having a certain pattern of openings, a deposition material source disposed under the mask and supplying a deposition material to the mask through the openings of the mask to form a layer on the substrate, and a holding unit pressing the substrate toward the mask. The holding unit includes a member that is capable of being deformed according to a deformed shape of the substrate such that the mask closely contacts the substrate.
Han (U.S. Patent No. 9,515,296 B2) discloses a deposition device including a chamber configured to accommodate a substrate supported on a stage, a deposition source configured to discharge material toward the substrate, and a laser mask system configured to form a laser mask between the substrate and the stage.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 08/27/2026
Prosecution Insights