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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 February 2026 has been entered.
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 21-24 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”). 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 capable of 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.
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.). 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 (i.e. capable of) 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, the spin coater assembly is capable of the intended use of collecting the characterization data in an intended use, comprising constructing a database, either locally or on the cloud, and performing at least one of data analytics and visualization. Intended use recitations are not given significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, capable of the intended use of collecting the data.
Regarding Claims 23-24, the spin coater assembly is capable of the intended use of collecting the characterization data in an intended use, including collecting the characterization data, including guiding one or more experiments manually, automatically, semi-autonomously, or autonomously by applying statistical, machine- learning, or artificial intelligence algorithms. Intended use recitations are not given significant patentable weight for the claimed apparatus, capable of the intended use of collecting the data.
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 amendment to the claims, filed 23 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) has been fully considered and overcomes the previous rejection under this paragraph. The rejection of Claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to the claims, filed 23 February 2026, to further narrow Claim 1 and to require additional features (“bifurcated optical fiber probe”) is now considered to make MacLeod et al. the best primary reference. Abdelsamie et al. is now cited to best address the combination of an optical fiber probe over a substrate (Claim 1) in relation to a UV-vis probe (Claim 8).
In response to Applicant’s argument that Naka has a focus on inkjet patterning, film formation, and rotation profiles (Remarks, p. 9), the claims are drawn to an apparatus not to a specific process. Naka teaches spin coating and is thus both analogous art in the field of spin coating and is reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of providing a spin coating apparatus.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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