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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, claims 1-16*, in the reply filed on 1 December 2025 is acknowledged.
*Note: Examiner assumes Applicant meant to elect claims 1-15, as claims 16-20 were cancelled in the same response.
Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply. Claims 16-20 were cancelled in the aforementioned reply.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 28 December 2022 and 22 October 2024 fail to fully comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. They have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein – and lined through -- has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, irradiation member and upper reflective member must be shown (and numbered) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show 500 and 900 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 500 and 900.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: claim 1 and 8: support unit, which has been interpreted as a body, a support pin, a support shaft and a driving machine, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 82; claim 1 and 8: liquid supply unit, which has been interpreted as a nozzle, a fixed body, a rotary shaft, and a rotation driving machine, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 93; claim 1 and 8: laser unit which has been interpreted as a housing, a movement member, an irradiation member, a lower reflective plate, a capturing member, a lighting member, and an upper reflective member, as set forth, e.g., in para. 100; claim 1 and 8: oscillation unit which has been interpreted as a “light”/”laser” and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 110; claim 1 and 8: a diffraction unit which has been interpreted as a body/mirror and a plate, or diffractive optical element (DOE), and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in paras. 141 and 115; claim 7 and 14 capturing member which has been interpreted as a camera, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in para. 125.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
As detailed above, each of claims 1 and 8 “laser unit” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, in the claims, this feature is defined by additional features also interpreted under the same statute -- oscillation unit and diffraction unit. As a generic placeholder lacks content, by definition, it cannot be relied upon to establish the structural configuration of another placeholder. Because the definition of “laser unit” and its associated structural features are unclear, the bounds of the claim must be determined be unclear and indefinite as well. In order to expedite examination, since the subcomponents of “laser unit” as claimed are properly defined under 112(f) (i.e. a housing, a movement member, an irradiation member, a lower reflective plate, a capturing member, a lighting member, and an upper reflective member) the Examiner will provisionally interpret the laser unit as the sum of the subcomponents included in the 112f interpretation and the other explicitly recited components.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Important issues remain above with respect to rejections based on claim interpretation. However, based on Examiner’s claim interpretation(s) set forth above, if no other issues are found or created, claims 1-15 would appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and address all other related issues.
Based on the above claim interpretations, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record (see below) fails to teach or fairly suggest a substrate treatment apparatus comprising a support unit (interpreted as a body, a support pin, a support shaft and a driving machine; see above), a liquid supply unit (interpreted as a nozzle, a fixed body, a rotary shaft, and a rotation driving machine; see above); a laser unit (interpreted as a housing, a movement member, an irradiation member, a lower reflective plate, a capturing member, a lighting member, and an upper reflective member); an oscillation unit (interpreted as a “light”/”laser”; see above; also part of irradiation member); and a diffraction unit (interpreted as a body/mirror and a plate, or diffractive optical element (DOE), see above; also part of irradiation member). Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
KR 20190037379: Kim et al. discloses an apparatus capable of treating a masks/substrate and substantially as claimed, the apparatus comprising: a support unit/support (340, having chuck [342], a support pin [344], a support shaft [348] and a driving member [350]) capable to support and rotate a masks/substrate, a heating unit/heater including a laser irradiator (391) and a driver (394, see, e.g., page 5 of reference/translation as provided to Applicant), the laser irradiator being configured to irradiate a laser light to a second pattern of a mask/substrate, the driver being a linear motor, the linear motor being configured to change a position of the laser irradiator; and a controller (400; see, e.g., Fig. 7 and accompanying text of translation) configured to control the support and the heating unit/heater.
USP 6047238; USP 6949147; USP Pub. 2014/0206263 disclose a laser unit with a plurality of complementary optical structures provided in a housing (Figs. 1-7, 180) for adjusting the position to which the laser/light is irradiated.
USP 4283259; USP 4904340; USP Pub. 2006/0090848; USP Pub. 2015/0348852; USP Pub. 2020/0159122; USP Pub. 2022/0283512; and KR20180127150 disclose a laser/light units with a plurality of complementary structures (see, e.g., Fig. 11) for adjusting the position to which the laser/light is irradiated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716