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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-6, 8, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to require that “the one or more sensors and the arm assembly are spatially arranged to maintain an unobstructed optical path during movement and operation of the plurality of material dispensers” and “the controller is configured for collecting the characterization material contemporaneously with dispensing of material from the plurality of material dispensers.” These inserted limitations include subject matter, not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe an unobstructed optical path during movement or operation of a plurality of material dispensers nor sufficiently describe what an arrangement of sensors and arm assembly would require. The specification as originally filed also does not describe a controller configured specifically for collecting characterization material contemporaneously with dispensing of material form the plurality of material dispenser or what configuration would be considered to be specifically for collecting the characterization material contemporaneously with dispensing material from the plurality of material dispensers.
Claim 1 requires that “the controller is configured for collecting the characterization material.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear whether the limitation “is configured” is supposed to be read as an intended use, as programmed to collect the characterization data, or what the controller requires “without additional modification.” Claim 23, which depends from Claim 1 recites the limitation that “collecting the characterization data comprises guiding one or more experiments manually”; since Claim 23 recites that “collecting the characterization data,” for which step Claim 1 recites that a controller “is configured for,” can be done manually, it is not clear what Applicant means by a controller “configured for.” Examiner will consider the limitation to require a controller to be capable of performing the recited function without additional modification, including of performing the collection manually, since Claim 23 includes that possibility for the controller.
Claim 25 recites that “a controller is further configured for concurrently obtaining a plurality of characterization data during fabrication of the sample and updating, based on characterization obtained during the material from the plurality of material dispensers, fabrication parameters for subsequent dispensing of material.” The specification describes a machine learning module which can be configured to receive training data, including from the device and to produce a machine learning model for characterizing samples which can be reported on a user computer, but not a controller configured to update, based on characterization data obtained during the dispensing of material from the plurality of material dispensers, fabrication parameters for subsequent dispensing of material.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “the controller is further configured for concurrently obtaining a plurality of characterization data during fabrication of the sample.” The specification as originally filed does not describe a controller configured to concurrently obtain a plurality of data. The specification also does not describe obtaining a plurality of characterization data specifically during fabrication of the sample.
Claims 2-6,8, and 21-25 are rejected as depending from other rejected claims.
Claims 1-6,8, and 21-25 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 1 recites the limitation “spatially arranged to maintain an unobstructed optical path during movement and operation of the plurality of material dispensers.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, because it is not clear what is required by the limitation “maintain an unobstructed optical path during movement and operation of dispensers” or what a recited arrangement of sensors and arm is required to perform the recited function. The claim does not define a specific spatial relationship between sensors and arm to meet the claim nor does it specify specific movements or operation of a dispenser to permit determination of whether a specific movement or operation would or would not obstruct an optical path. The specification provides no guidance as to such an arrangement. Examiner considers the limitation to include the interpretation that the arm or sensor must be capable of being positioned in relation to each other or to another component or substrate such that at least during some movement or operation of at least one dispenser the optical fiber probe configured for collecting characterization data (some property) of a material on a substrate.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “during movement of the plurality of material dispensers” in line 10. The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because previously in lines 4-5, Claim 1 requires only “one of the plurality of material dispensers” to be selectively positioned over the substrate. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation to loosely refer to movement of the one of the plurality of dispensers that is selectively positioned in the previous limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “dispensing of material from the plurality of material dispensers” in lines 15-16. The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because previously in lines 4-5, Claim 1 requires only “one of the plurality of material dispensers” to be selectively positioned over the substrate. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation to loosely refer to dispensing material from the one of the plurality of dispensers that is selectively positioned in the previous limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the controller is configured for collecting the characterization material contemporaneously with dispensing of material from the plurality of material dispensers.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what the word “contemporaneously” requires. The claim does not define the scope of the limitation and the specification neither uses the word “contemporaneously” nor describes such a configuration. It is not clear whether “contemporaneously” should be interpreted as occurring during the course of a process, which does not necessarily include simultaneity, or whether it should be understood to mean “simultaneously”; the specification is silent. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation to include occurring during the course of a process.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “during the dispensing of material from the plurality of material dispensers” in lines 4-5. The limitation is indefinite as ambiguous, because Claim 1 in lines 4-5 requires only “one of the plurality of material dispensers” to be selectively positioned over the substrate. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation to loosely refer to dispensing material from the one of the plurality of dispensers that is selectively positioned in the previous limitation. Examiner considers the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation to loosely refer to dispensing of material from the one of the plurality of dispensers that is selectively positioned in the previous limitation.
Claims 2-6, 8, and 21-25 are rejected as depending from rejected Claim 1.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,8, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLeod et al. “Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials”. Sci.Adv., Vol 6, pp. 1-8 (2020) in view of Abdelsamie et al. "In situ UV-visible absorption during spin-coating of organic semiconductors: a new probe for organic electronics and photovoltaics".J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 3373–3381.
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, MacLeod et al. teach a spin coater assembly comprising: a spinner configured for receiving a substrate thereon; a plurality of material dispensers; an arm assembly configured to selectively position one of the plurality of material dispensers (pipettes, see also “Pipette rack and remover,” Fig. 1) over the substrate; one or more sensors, comprising a trifurcated optical fiber probe (three-way split fiber-optic reflection probe connected to a UV-vis spectrometer, a NIR spectrometer, and an SL4 lamp) configured for collecting characterization data from material, during fabrication, on the substrate in-line; and a controller in communication with each of the spinner, the plurality of material dispensers, the one or more sensors, and the arm assembly configured for collecting the characterization data from the material on the substrate while fabricating a sample (Figs. 1-2; p. 5, section “Autonomous workflow step 5: Robotic UV-vis-NIR spectroscopy Spectrometer design”). Fig. 2 shows an arrangement of sensors and arm which are capable of maintaining an unobstructed optical path during at least some movement or operation of the plurality of material dispensers.
MacLeod et al. fails to teach specifically a bifurcated optical probe. However, a) one could view the SL4 lamp as not being part of the actual probe itself and b) it would have been obvious to eliminate one or the other of the UV-vis or the NIR spectrometer where data in that wavelength is not desired or necessary for a specific coating material or to provide the SL4 lamp separately (e.g. separate fiber), in any of the cases reducing the trifurcated optical fiber probe to a bifurcated optical fiber probe. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the spin coater assembly of MacLeod et al. with a bifurcated optical fiber probe to provide at least two of the functionalities of the trifurcated optical probe (e.g. where the functionality of one of the three structures is not required to be provided by the optical fiber probe.
MacLeod et al. fails to teach that the probe is positioned over the spinner. Abdelsamie et al. is analogous art in the field of spin coating and teach a UV-vis optical fiber probe positioned over the spinner. The UV-vis optical fiber probe both of MacLeod et al. and of Abdelsamie et al. is configured for collecting characterization data from material, during fabrication, on the substrate in-line or in situ; Abdelsamie et al. specifically addresses in situ data collection to better understand and control a coating process (Abstract; Fig. 1; p. 2, left column, last paragraph to right column, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the spin coater assembly of MacLeod et al. by positioning the optical fiber probe over the spinner, because Abdelsamie et al. suggests this configuration to collect data about a coating material in situ during a spin coating process, thereby improving control over the process. Additionally, the controller is configured (i.e. programmed) to collect characterization material contemporaneously (i.e. during a cycle or process) with dispensing material from the plurality of material dispensers (Abstract; Fig. 2; p. 1, right column; p. 4, last paragraph through p. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus to spatially arrange the one or more sensors and arm assembly so that there is an unobstructed optical path during whatever movement and operation of a material dispenser is required during a time when data collection by the sensor would occur.
With regard to the controller, MacLeod et al. teach a controller in communication with each of the spinner, the plurality of material dispensers, the one or more sensors (“fully autonomous loop”). (Abstract; p. 6, left col.). The controller is configured to collect characterization by guiding one or more experiments automatically and autonomously by applying statistical algorithms. Although MacLeod et al. does not teach the position of the probe, it is reasonable to consider the change of placement of the probe to have trivial effect on the capability of a controller to control the probe, and a required modification would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art given the teachings and suggestions in the combination of references.
Regarding Claim 2, MacLeod et al. teaches a spinner chuck configured to receive (capable of receiving) the substrate, wherein the plurality of material dispensers comprises a plurality of liquid handlers that each include an outlet coupled to the arm assembly (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, MacLeod et al. teach syringe pumps (Fig. 1, text; p. 6, left col.).
Regarding Claim 21, MacLeod et al. teaches a camera positioned near the spinner and configured for capturing images in-line of a process using the spin coater assembly, the camera in communication with the controller (Figs. 1-2; p. 6, left col.).
Regarding Claim 22, MacLeod et al. teaches that the spin coater assembly is configured to collect the characterization data, comprising constructing a database, either locally or on the cloud, and performing at least one of data analytics and visualization (configured to collect and store multiple data types, values, and data sets) (p. 2, left column) and also to perform at least one of data analytics and visualization (“characterizes films,” calculates diagnostic hole mobility value, determines next experiment) (Fig. 2, including text; p. 2, left column).
Regarding Claim 23, MacLeod et al. teaches that the controller is configured for collecting the characterization data, including guiding one or more experiments manually, automatically, semi-autonomously, or autonomously, including by applying statistical (e.g. Bayesian algorithm), machine learning, or artificial intelligence algorithms; “Ada trains itself how to find target parameters without any prior knowledge, enabling iterative experimental designs that maximize the information gain per sample” (Fig. 2; p. 7, left side; p. 1, left column, last paragraph through right col., first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 24, MacLeod et al. the one or more experiments are selected from the group consisting of uncertainty quantification, feature extraction, exploitation and multi-parameter optimization (Bayesian optimization), semi-autonomous and autonomous experimentation (Fig. 2; p. 7, left side; p. 1, left column, last paragraph through right col., first paragraph; col. 6, left column; p. 7, left column).
Regarding Claim 25, MacLeod et al. teaches that the controller is configured for concurrently obtaining a plurality of characterization data during fabrication of the sample and updating (e.g. step (8)) determines next experiment), based on characterization data obtained during dispensing material from the one of the plurality of material dispensers positioned over the substrate (see Claim 1), fabrication parameters (e.g. step (7)) for subsequent dispensing of material (Fig. 2; pp. 6-7).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLeod et al. “Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials”. Sci.Adv., Vol 6, pp. 1-8 (2020) in view of Abdelsamie et al. "In situ UV-visible absorption during spin-coating of organic semiconductors: a new probe for organic electronics and photovoltaics".J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 3373–3381 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al. (US 2004/0242023).
Regarding Claim 4, MacLeod et al. teach a heat gun capable of annealing a coating (p. 6, left). The combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. fails to teach in infrared spot lamp. Yan et al. (US’023) is analogous art in the field of spin coating and teaches an infrared lamp (i.e. “spot lamp”) capable of preheating the spin chuck, and thus any substrate placed on it [0201]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. with an infrared spot lamp capable of performing the recited intended use, not given patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, because US’023 is analogous art, which teaches a heating lamp for preheating a spin chuck of a spin coater.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLeod et al. “Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials”. Sci.Adv., Vol 6, pp. 1-8 (2020) in view of Abdelsamie et al. "In situ UV-visible absorption during spin-coating of organic semiconductors: a new probe for organic electronics and photovoltaics".J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 3373–3381 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 5,626,675).
Regarding Claim 5, MacLeod et al. teach a rotating arm with dispenser (Fig. 1). The combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. fails to teach a servo motor; however, servo motors were conventional at the time of invention. For example, Sakamoto et al. (US’675) teaches a spin coater (Fig. 2) with servo motor to drive rotation (col. 6, lines 53-58). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. with a servo to rotate the one of the plurality of material dispensers into a position over the substrate, because servo motors were conventional at the time of invention, and also because US’675 suggests a conventional servo as a drive for rotational motion.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacLeod et al. “Self-driving laboratory for accelerated discovery of thin-film materials”. Sci.Adv., Vol 6, pp. 1-8 (2020) in view of Abdelsamie et al. "In situ UV-visible absorption during spin-coating of organic semiconductors: a new probe for organic electronics and photovoltaics".J. Mater. Chem. C, 2014, 2, 3373–3381 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Naka et al. (US 5,935,331).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. fails to teach a gas inlet in communication with the spinner and configured for (i.e. capable of) at least one of maintaining a desired processing environment at the substrate and quenching the substrate. US’331 is analogous art in the field of spin coating (Figs. 18-19; col. 23, lines 46-49; col. 21, lines 4-6; col. 22, lines 10-14) and teaches a gas inlet (e.g. “A”) from air supply source for air flow-out head 71 in communication with the spinner 12 and configured to maintain a desired processing environment at the substrate (Figs. 4, 7; col. 16, lines col. 11, lines 29-35; col. 8, lines 17-20) and also an inert gas inlet (“function of filling inert gas” and means) (col. 16, lines 4-18). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the apparatus of the combination of MacLeod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. with a gas inlet, because US’331 suggests a gas inlet to provide an appropriate atmosphere for forming a film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the combination of Macleod et al. in view of Abdelsamie et al. fails to teach that the one or more sensors and the arm assembly are spatially arranged to maintain an unobstructed optical path during movement and operation of the plurality of material dispensers (Remarks, p. 8), the added combination of limitations is indefinite as ambiguous, is new matter, and it would have been obvious to position the one or more sensors and the arm assembly spatially to maintain an unobstructed optical path during whatever movement and operation of the one of the plurality of material dispensers positioned over the substrate is required to perform a process, taught in Macleod et al. (see Claim 1, which recites only one of a plurality of dispensers, not a plurality of dispensers, positioned over the substrate). See rejections under 112(a), 112(b), and 103 herein.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that no new matter has been added (Remarks, p. 8), the statement of support on page 7 of the Remarks does not address every issue raised in the rejections of Claims 1-6, 8, and 21-25 under 35 USC 112(a) herein.
In response to Applicant’s arguments concerning functions a controller is configured for (Remarks, pp. 8-9), MacLeod teaches them (e.g. Fig. 2; p. 1; left col., last paragraph, to right col. first paragraph; pp. 5-7). Moreover, “contemporaneously” is indefinite as vague, but considered to be broad enough to be taught by a process during which material is dispensed and a controller controls collection of characterization data, including by controlling a sensor doing the collecting.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
