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 claims 10-15 in the reply filed on 02/12/26 is acknowledged.
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: “tray providing portion” in claim 12:
“A part of the first chamber 210 may be formed to be opened, and may be connected to the tray providing portion 280. In an embodiment, the tray providing portion 280 and the first chamber 210 may be connected to each other via a connection chamber 213.”, para. [0052]; “The tray providing portion 280 may include a second chamber 281, a cassette 282, a cassette driving portion 283, and a second pressure adjusting portion 292.”, para. [0075]; “The second chamber 281 may have a space therein, that is, a space is defined in the second chamber 281, and the second chamber 281 may be connected to the connection chamber 213. In an embodiment, the second chamber 281 may include an opening region, and a window seated on the tray may be replaced through the opening region. In an embodiment, a second chamber opening/closing portion 281 a may be arranged in the opening region of the second chamber 281. In such an embodiment, the second chamber opening/closing portion 281 a may have a shape of a door or gate valve. The cassette 282 may be arranged in the second chamber 281 and may ascend or descend. In an embodiment, the cassette 282 may have a shape of a shelf on which a plurality of trays may be seated. The cassette driving portion 283 may be arranged inside the second chamber 281, may be connected to the cassette 282 and may ascend/descend the cassette 282. In an embodiment, the cassette driving portion 283 may include a driving force generating portion 283 a, a first driving force transferring portion 283 b, a second driving force transferring portion 283 c, an ascending/descending block 283 d, and a guide portion 283 e.”, para. [0076] - [0078]; FIG. 1.
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 10-15 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.
Claim 10 recites “in which a first window is disposed” and claim 12 recites “in which a second window is disposed”, the claims should be amended to explicitly recite which structural limitation is explicitly being referenced as including each of the respective first and second windows. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20140085117) in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2019074506).
With regard to claim 10, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (“light emitting display”; “The substrate inspection etch composite apparatus 100 may be used in a manufacturing process of an organic light emitting display device or the like and may be disposed between the first process chamber 200”), the method comprising: arranging a substrate (10) in a chamber (110); moving a first tray (131/132/133), in which a first window (110c) is disposed (FIG. 6), to a position in the chamber (110) corresponding to the substrate (10)(FIG. 6).
Kim does not explicitly teach detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt; however, Ishida from the same field of endeavor directed toward a power belt transmission device and belt state measurement method teaches the aforementioned limitation(s), namely: “A detector 4 is installed on the outside of the stress luminescent material 10 formed on the outer peripheral surface of the belt 2. The detector 4 can separately detect the light emission intensity from the stress luminescent material at a plurality of places. FIG. 1 shows an example in which one camera using a solid-state image sensor as the detector 4 is used. When a camera is used as the detector 4, the light emission of a plurality of locations of the stress luminescent material formed on the belt 2 can be detected in the form of a two-dimensional light emission distribution. Therefore, even without using a plurality of detectors, it is possible to detect the light emission amount of a plurality of light emitting portions having different bending stress.”, pg. 4, ln. 21-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference which includes a movable tray (131/132/133), to include detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt, as suggested and taught by Ishida, for the purpose of providing a mechanism to remotely monitor a condition of the belt (Ishida: pg, 4, ln. 21-25).
With regard to claim 13, Kim teaches radiating a laser onto the substrate (10) by passing through the first window (110c) (FIG. 6).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20140085117) in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2019074506) as detailed above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2004134464).
With regard to claim 12, Kim and Ishida teach the invention as claimed, however, the citations do not teach the limitation of replacing the first tray with a second tray, in which a second window is disposed, by using a tray providing portion connected to the chamber. However, Yoshida directed to the same field of endeavor of a substrate cassette and display device manufacturing system teaches the known teaching regarding a transfer system for replacing substrates: “In FIG. 9, a substrate 51 mounted on a substrate cassette 50 is transported in a clean room by an automatic guided vehicle (AGV) 60. In the predetermined process, the substrate cassette 50 is carried into the loader 53, is put into the physical cleaning room 90 by the transfer robot 54, and the substrate 51 is subjected to the physical cleaning process. In the physical cleaning, first, ultraviolet light is irradiated by a UV lamp 61 to remove organic substances, and then, the physical cleaning unit 62 such as a brush cleaning or a megasonic cleaning is used. The cleaning is performed by a water cleaning processing unit 64 and a drying processing unit 65. It is sent to the unloader 55. These cleaned substrates are stored in a substrate cassette 50 and transported to the loader / unloader 56 of the film forming chamber 72 by the AGV. Here, the substrate 51 is taken out of the substrate cassette 50 by the transfer robot 54, and the amorphous silicon film is formed in the film forming chamber. Next, the wafer is transported again by being exposed to the clean room atmosphere, and subjected to another processing. These substrates may be stored in the storage 80 depending on the idle time of the film forming apparatus.”, para. [0054].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference, to include replacing the first tray with a second tray, in which a second window is disposed, by using a tray providing portion connected to the chamber, as suggested and taught by Yoshida, for the purpose of providing a mechanized transfer system for substrates (Yoshida: para. [0054]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20140085117) in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2019074506) and Park et al. (KR 20210120175).
With regard to claim 11, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (“light emitting display”; “The substrate inspection etch composite apparatus 100 may be used in a manufacturing process of an organic light emitting display device or the like and may be disposed between the first process chamber 200”), the method comprising: arranging a substrate (10) in a chamber (110); moving a first tray (131/132/133), in which a first window (110c) is disposed (FIG. 6), to a position in the chamber (110) corresponding to the substrate (10)(FIG. 6).
Kim does not explicitly teach detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt; however, Ishida from the same field of endeavor directed toward a power belt transmission device and belt state measurement method teaches the aforementioned limitation(s), namely: “A detector 4 is installed on the outside of the stress luminescent material 10 formed on the outer peripheral surface of the belt 2. The detector 4 can separately detect the light emission intensity from the stress luminescent material at a plurality of places. FIG. 1 shows an example in which one camera using a solid-state image sensor as the detector 4 is used. When a camera is used as the detector 4, the light emission of a plurality of locations of the stress luminescent material formed on the belt 2 can be detected in the form of a two-dimensional light emission distribution. Therefore, even without using a plurality of detectors, it is possible to detect the light emission amount of a plurality of light emitting portions having different bending stress.”, pg. 4, ln. 21-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference which includes a movable tray (131/132/133), to include detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt, as suggested and taught by Ishida, for the purpose of providing a mechanism to remotely monitor a condition of the belt (Ishida: pg, 4, ln. 21-25).
Kim does not explicitly teach maintaining a pressure inside the chamber to be lower than an atmospheric pressure; however, Park from the same field of endeavor directed toward a mask assembly and apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus teaches the aforementioned limitation: a pressuring adjusting unit 370.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference, to include a pressure adjusting unit, as suggested and taught by Park, for the purpose of providing a predetermined pressure value within a chamber.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20140085117) in view of Ishida et al. (JP 2019074506) and Lee (KR 20060014240).
With regard to claim 14, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a display device (“light emitting display”; “The substrate inspection etch composite apparatus 100 may be used in a manufacturing process of an organic light emitting display device or the like and may be disposed between the first process chamber 200”), the method comprising: arranging a substrate (10) in a chamber (110); moving a first tray (131/132/133), in which a first window (110c) is disposed (FIG. 6), to a position in the chamber (110) corresponding to the substrate (10)(FIG. 6).
Kim does not explicitly teach detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt; however, Ishida from the same field of endeavor directed toward a power belt transmission device and belt state measurement method teaches the aforementioned limitation(s), namely: “A detector 4 is installed on the outside of the stress luminescent material 10 formed on the outer peripheral surface of the belt 2. The detector 4 can separately detect the light emission intensity from the stress luminescent material at a plurality of places. FIG. 1 shows an example in which one camera using a solid-state image sensor as the detector 4 is used. When a camera is used as the detector 4, the light emission of a plurality of locations of the stress luminescent material formed on the belt 2 can be detected in the form of a two-dimensional light emission distribution. Therefore, even without using a plurality of detectors, it is possible to detect the light emission amount of a plurality of light emitting portions having different bending stress.”, pg. 4, ln. 21-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference which includes a movable tray (131/132/133), to include detecting a position of one point of a belt when the belt is moved; and determining whether the belt is abnormal based on the position of the one point of the belt, as suggested and taught by Ishida, for the purpose of providing a mechanism to remotely monitor a condition of the belt (Ishida: pg, 4, ln. 21-25).
Kim does not explicitly teach comparing an actual movement distance of the first tray, at which the first tray is actually moved, with a signal movement distance at which the first tray is pre-set to be moved in response to an external signal. However, Lee from the same field of endeavor directed toward a slip amount measuring device of a conveying belt teaches “as shown in FIG. 4, when the material 100 moves in the direction of the arrow on the conveyor belt 101, the conveyor belt (using the encoder value of the known drive motor and the encoder value of the present invention) which drives the conveyor belt 101 is used. The slip amount of 101) is measured. First, the encoder value of the conveyor belt 101 is measured by measuring the encoder value of the conveyor belt 101 when the known first sensor 13a and the second sensor 13b are turned “ON” by the material 100 being conveyed. The encoder value of the first sensor 13a is subtracted from the value. Second, the actual moving distance of the conveyor belt 101 is obtained using the encoder 11 of the measuring device according to the present invention as described above. Third, by calculating the average value by repeating the measurement to find the difference between the first and second, the slip amount of the measured conveyor belt can be obtained, and as described above with respect to the actual measured length of the material 100, It is possible to correct the error by adjusting the rotation drive of the conveyor belt.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kim reference, to include measuring a movement distance of a subject item, as suggested and taught by Lee, for the purpose of providing improved reliability of measuring material length.
With regard to claim 15, Lee teaches comparing the actual movement distance with the signal movement distance to adjust a tensile force of the belt (“by calculating the average value by repeating the measurement to find the difference between the first and second, the slip amount of the measured conveyor belt can be obtained, and as described above with respect to the actual measured length of the material 100, It is possible to correct the error by adjusting the rotation drive of the conveyor belt.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761