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
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups 2-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/9/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks filed 5/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 16-18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the particular combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
With regards to the prior art rejection, Applicant does argue that “in all of You’s embodiments that the chucking unit 120 (i.e., the alleged claimed processing unit) and the head cleaning apparatus 300 share a same base (namely, stage 112) of the inkjet printing unit 110” (page 8 of remarks). While Examiner recognizes that You et al.’s chucking unit 120 and cleaning apparatus 300 are both formed on the stage 112, please note that general nature of the claim term “base” allows for alternate interpretations. For example, the “base of the processing unit” is not limited to the stage 112 on which the processing unit is disposed, but may may correspond to the underside of the chucking unit 120 itself; similarly, the “base of the maintenance unit” may correspond to the underside of the head cleaning apparatus 300 itself. In this interpretation, the base of the chucking unit 120 and the base of the head cleaning apparatus 300 are certainly “physically separate from one another,” as required by the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change the recitation of “base of the maintenance” (lines 10-11 of the claim) to “base of the maintenance unit”. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 16-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2022/0040982 A1) in view of Kawase et al. (US 2003/0001992 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
You et al. disclose a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
a processing unit (chucking unit 120) supporting and moving a substrate (S: Fig. 2);
an inkjet head unit (head assembly 200) performing pixel printing on the substrate (paragraph 57);
a gantry unit (gantry 114) moving the inkjet head unit over the substrate (paragraph 61 & Fig. 2), and configured to be movable along guide rails comprising a first guide rail (first guide member 150) and a second guide rail (second guide member 152); and
a maintenance unit (head cleaning apparatus 300) configured for maintenance of the inkjet head unit (paragraph 65),
wherein a base of the processing unit (e.g. the base chucking unit 120; alternatively, the base of the chuck driver 126), a base of the maintenance unit (e.g. the base of head cleaning apparatus 300), and the guide rails along (150, 152) which the gantry unit are movable are disposed side-by-side and in parallel to one another without overlapping with one another (Fig. 2), the base of the processing unit and the base of the maintenance unit being physically separated from one another (Fig. 2),
wherein the guide rails are arranged along a length direction of the base of the processing unit and the base of the maintenance unit (Fig. 2) and the processing unit and the maintenance unit are disposed between the first guide rail and the second guide rail (Fig. 2),
wherein a first terminal end of a length-wise body of the gantry unit is attached to the first guide rail (Fig. 2), a second terminal end of the length-wise body of the gantry unit is attached to the second guide rail (Fig. 2), and a length-wise body of the gantry extends across all of the first guide rail, the second guide rail, the maintenance unit, and the processing unit (Fig. 2),
wherein the inkjet head unit includes head packs (210a-c) which include a plurality of nozzles ejecting a substrate treatment liquid onto the substrate (paragraph 57), a head base (at least the bracket 202) in which the head packs are installed (paragraph 55 & Fig. 2).
You et al. do not expressly disclose that the head packs are disposed in a single row in the head base.
However, Kawase et al. discloses a substrate treatment apparatus comprising an inkjet head unit (head unit 26) that is arranged to treat an entire substrate surface in a single scanning (paragraph 121) by including head packs (head sections 20) that include a plurality of nozzles (27) ejecting a substrate treatment liquid (material M) onto a substrate (paragraph 128), and a head base (carriage 25) in which the head packs are installed (Fig. 7), wherein the head packs are disposed in a single row in the head base (Fig. 7).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inkjet head unit configuration taught by Kawase et al., so as to enable treatment of the entire substrate in a single scanning.
Regarding claim 2:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. also disclose that the head packs include first and second head packs, which are adjacent to each other (Fig. 7), and wherein the first and second head packs are of different types (paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 3:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. also disclose that the head packs include first and second head packs, which are adjacent to each other (Fig. 7), and wherein a nozzle of the first head pack that is adjacent to the second head pack does not overlap with a nozzle of the second head pack that is adjacent to the first head pack (Figs. 7, 11).
Regarding claim 4:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. also disclose that the head packs include first and second head packs, which are adjacent to each other (Fig. 7), and wherein the first and second head packs are spaced apart from each other (by a distance D: paragraph 129 & Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Kawase et al. also disclose that a distance (D) between the first and second head packs is the same as a size of the head packs (“equal to the length L2 of the nozzle row 28 in each head section 20”: paragraph 129).
Regarding claim 6:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. also disclose that the size of the head packs combined is the same as a size of the substrate (paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 10:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and You et al. also disclose that the gantry unit is a single gantry unit supporting the inkjet head unit on one side of the inkjet head unit (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and You et al. also disclose an inspection unit (at least imaging member 370: paragraph 83 & Fig. 4) provided on the base of the maintenance unit (paragraph 83 & Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 16, and You et al. also disclose that the base of the maintenance unit is formed on a different level from the base of the processing unit (at least when comparing the base of chuck driver 126 to the base of head cleaning apparatus 300: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. also disclose that each of the head packs includes a plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in a (one of the X or Y directions: Fig. 12) and a plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in a second direction (the other of the X or Y directions: Fig. 12), and
the plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in the first direction are arranged to be fully or partially overlapped with one another according to a resolution of an image to be formed on the substrate (paragraph 170 & Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. as modified by Kawase et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyajima (US 2020/0122474 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressly comprise a head frame including a storage tank and pressure control module.
However, Miyajima discloses a substrate treatment apparatus that provides a simple pressure management configuration (paragraph 87) by providing an inkjet head unit (60) that includes a head frame (housing 12) that is installed on a head base (Fig. 1), wherein the head frame includes a storage tank (“ink tank” / cartridge 11) that stores substrate treatment liquid (paragraphs 19, 73), and a pressure control module (at least valve mechanism 40) that controls a meniscus associated with the substrate treatment liquid (paragraphs 22, 35, 37 & Fig. 1).
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the head unit configuration taught by Miyajima, so as to simply manage the treatment liquids in Tezuka’s modified head unit.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. as modified by Kawase et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tezuka (US 2006/0181567 A1) and Han (US 2021/0296375 A1).
Regarding claim 17:
You et al.’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and You et al. also disclose that the inspection unit comprises a nozzle care module (ejection unit 350) that cleans the nozzles (paragraphs 65-66).
You et al.’s modified apparatus does not expressly comprise an inspection unit that also comprises a measurement module that measures droplets ejected from the nozzles of the inkjet head unit, a vision module that inspects the droplets.
However, Tezuka discloses a substrate treatment apparatus that includes an inspection unit (Fig. 7) comprising a measurement module (electronic balance 47) that measures droplets ejected from nozzles of an inkjet head unit so as to enable size adjustment of the liquid droplets being discharged (paragraph 74); and Han discloses an inspection unit that includes a vision module (sensor unit 150) that inspects droplets (Fig. 2) so as to enable calculation of droplet characteristics for greater control (paragraph 105).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a measurement module, such as taught by Tezuka, and a vision module, such as taught by Han.
Claim(s) 19 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tezuka (US 2006/0181567 A1) in view of You et al. (US 2022/0040982 A1), Kawase et al. (US 2003/0001992 A1), and Miyajima (US 2020/0122474 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
You et al. disclose a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
a processing unit (chucking unit 120) supporting and moving a substrate (S: Fig. 2);
an inkjet head unit (head assembly 200) performing pixel printing on the substrate (paragraph 57);
a gantry unit (gantry 114) moving the inkjet head unit over the substrate (paragraph 61 & Fig. 2), and configured to be movable along guide rails comprising a first guide rail (first guide member 150) and a second guide rail (second guide member 152); and
a maintenance unit (head cleaning apparatus 300) configured for maintenance of the inkjet head unit (paragraph 65),
wherein the inkjet head unit includes head packs (210a-c) that include a plurality of nozzles ejecting a substrate treatment liquid onto the substrate (paragraph 57), a head base (bracket 202), and a pressure control module (pressure controller 118) controlling a meniscus associated with the substrate treatment liquid (paragraph 63),
wherein a base of the processing unit (e.g. the base chucking unit 120; alternatively, the base of the chuck driver 126), a base of the maintenance unit (e.g. the base of head cleaning apparatus 300), and the guide rails along (150, 152) which the gantry unit are movable are disposed side-by-side and in parallel to one another without overlapping with one another (Fig. 2), the base of the processing unit and the base of the maintenance unit being physically separated from one another (Fig. 2),
wherein the guide rails are arranged along a length direction of the base of the processing unit and the base of the maintenance unit (Fig. 2) and the processing unit and the maintenance unit are disposed between the first guide rail and the second guide rail (Fig. 2),
wherein a first terminal end of a length-wise body of the gantry unit is attached to the first guide rail (Fig. 2), a second terminal end of the length-wise body of the gantry unit is attached to the second guide rail (Fig. 2), and a length-wise body of the gantry extends across all of the first guide rail, the second guide rail, the maintenance unit, and the processing unit (Fig. 2).
You et al. do not expressly disclose that the inkjet head unit includes a head frame that includes a storage tank, or that the head packs are disposed in a single row in the head base, or that the pressure control module is disposed on the inkjet head unit.
However, Kawase et al. disclose a substrate treatment apparatus comprising an inkjet head unit (head unit 26) that is arranged to treat an entire substrate surface in a single scanning (paragraph 121) by including head packs (head sections 20), which include a plurality of nozzles (27) ejecting a substrate treatment liquid (material M) onto a substrate (paragraph 128), a head base (carriage 25) in which the head packs are installed (Fig. 7), wherein the head packs are disposed in a single row in the head base (Fig. 7).
Finally, Miyajima discloses a substrate treatment apparatus that provides a simple pressure management configuration (paragraph 87) by providing an inkjet head unit (60) that includes a head frame (housing 12) that is installed on a head base (Fig. 1), wherein the head frame includes a storage tank (“ink tank” / cartridge 11) that stores substrate treatment liquid (paragraphs 19, 73), and a pressure control module (at least valve mechanism 40) that controls a meniscus associated with the substrate treatment liquid (paragraphs 22, 35, 37 & Fig. 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the inkjet head unit configuration taught by Kawase et al., so as to enable treatment of the entire substrate in a single scanning, and to incorporate the treatment liquid management in the manner taught by Miyajima.
Regarding claim 22:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 19, and Kawase et al. also disclose that each of the head packs includes a plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in a (one of the X or Y directions: Fig. 12) and a plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in a second direction (the other of the X or Y directions: Fig. 12), and
the plurality of nozzles aligned in a line in the first direction are arranged to be fully or partially overlapped with one another according to a resolution of an image to be formed on the substrate (paragraph 170 & Fig. 12).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication with the USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shelby L Fidler whose telephone number is (571)272-8455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Douglas Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 431-0716. 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.
SHELBY L. FIDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2853
/SHELBY L FIDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights