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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2-3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see the newly applied prior art to Tezuka (US 2006/0181567 A1), which discloses a substrate treatment apparatus in which the gantry unit moves the inkjet head unit over the substrate and is configured to be movable along guide rails.
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 16-18 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.
Regarding claim 16:
This claim recites “a maintenance unit for maintenance of the inkjet head.” However, amended parent claim 1 already recites “a maintenance unit configured for maintenance of the inkjet head unit.” It is not clear if the maintenance unit of claim 16 is meant to refer to the maintenance unit of claim 1, or if the maintenance unit of claim 16 is meant to refer to another, different maintenance unit.
Regarding claims 17-18:
This claim fails to remedy the deficiencies of claim 16, and therefore also fails to meet the requirements of this statute.
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, 18, and 21 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) and Kawase et al. (US 2003/0001992 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Tezuka discloses a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
a processing unit (at least table 19) supporting and moving a substrate (32: paragraph 52 & Fig. 2);
an inkjet head unit (liquid discharging head 15) performing pixel printing on the substrate (paragraph 69);
a gantry unit (at least support frame 66) moving the inkjet head unit over the substrate (paragraph 62);
a maintenance unit (e.g. first maintenance unit 61) configured to maintenance of the inkjet head unit (paragraph 66),
wherein a base of the processing unit (base 30) and a base of the maintenance unit (maintenance base 65) are disposed parallel to one another (Figs. 2, 8),
wherein the inkjet head unit includes head packs (paragraph 57), which include a plurality of nozzles ejecting a substrate treatment liquid onto the substrate (paragraph 69).
Tezuka does not expressly disclose that the gantry unit is configured to be movable along guide rails, or the particulars of the inkjet head unit head packs.
However, You et al. disclose a substrate treatment apparatus comprising a gantry unit (gantry 114) that moves an inkjet head unit over a substrate (S: Fig. 2), and is configured to be movable along guide rails (sliders 150, 152) to enable the inkjet head unit movement in either X or Y directions (paragraph 59 & Fig. 2), wherein the guide rails are arranged parallel to a base (chucking unit 120) of a processing unit (Fig. 2), and arranged along a length direction of the base of the processing unit (Fig. 2).
Moreover, 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), 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, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a movable gantry unit, such as taught by You et al., into Tezuka’s apparatus, so as to enable X-Y movement of the inkjet head unit. In doing so, the guide rails are naturally arranged in parallel to both of Tezuka’s processing unit base and maintenance unit base. It would have been further obvious 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:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. disclose 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 packs are of different types (paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 3:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. disclose 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:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. disclose 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:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 4, and Kawase et al. disclose 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:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase et al. disclose also disclose that the size of the head packs combined is the same as a size of the substrate (paragraph 121).
Regarding claim 10:
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Tezuka also discloses 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 (as best understood):
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Tezuka also discloses that the apparatus further comprises an inspection unit (paragraph 111) provided on the base of the maintenance unit (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18 (as best understood):
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 16, and Tezuka also discloses that the base of the maintenance unit is formed on a different level from the base of the processing unit (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 21:
Tezuka’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 Tezuka as modified by You et al. and Kawase et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyajima (US 2020/0122474 A1).
Regarding claim 8:
Tezuka’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 Tezuka as modified by You et al. and Kawase et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han (US 2021/0296375 A1).
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood):
Tezuka’s modified apparatus comprises all the limitations of claim 1, and Tezuka also discloses that the inspection unit includes a measurement module (electronic balance 47), which measures droplets ejected from nozzles of the inkjet head unit (paragraph 74), and a nozzle care module (wiper 73), which cleans the nozzles (paragraph 73).
Tezuka’s modified apparatus does not expressly comprise a vision module in the inspection unit.
However, 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, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a vision module, such as taught by Han, into the inspection unit of Tezuka’s modified apparatus.
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:
Tezuka discloses a substrate treatment apparatus comprising:
a processing unit (at least table 19) supporting and moving a substrate (32: paragraph 52 & Fig. 2);
an inkjet head unit (liquid discharging head 15) performing pixel printing on the substrate (paragraph 69);
a gantry unit (at least support frame 66) moving the inkjet head unit over the substrate (paragraph 62);
a maintenance unit (e.g. first maintenance unit 61) configured for maintenance of the inkjet head unit (paragraph 66),
wherein the inkjet head unit includes head packs (paragraph 57), which include a plurality of nozzles ejecting a substrate treatment liquid onto the substrate (paragraph 69),
wherein a base of the processing unit (base 30) and a base of the maintenance unit (maintenance base 65) are disposed parallel to one another (Figs. 2, 8),
Tezuka does not expressly disclose that the gantry unit is configured to be movable along guide rails, or the particulars of the inkjet head unit head packs.
However, You et al. disclose a substrate treatment apparatus comprising a gantry unit (gantry 114) that moves an inkjet head unit over a substrate (S: Fig. 2), and is configured to be movable along guide rails (sliders 150, 152) to enable the inkjet head unit movement in either X or Y directions (paragraph 59 & Fig. 2), wherein the guide rails are arranged parallel to a base (chucking unit 120) of a processing unit (Fig. 2), and arranged along a length direction of the base of the processing unit (Fig. 2).
Moreover, 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, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a movable gantry unit, such as taught by You et al., into Tezuka’s apparatus, so as to enable X-Y movement of the inkjet head unit. In doing so, the guide rails are naturally arranged in parallel to both of Tezuka’s processing unit base and maintenance unit base. It would have been further obvious 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 manage the treatment liquids 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).
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