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 Species A (claims 1-5, 11-13 and 15-20) in the reply filed on 2 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-10 and 14 were withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. based on this election . 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: claim 18: gas supply unit has been interpreted as a storage tank, a common pipe and a supply pipe ( and equivalents thereto ) as set forth, e.g., at para. 79 in the specification; claim 18: gas emission unit has been interpreted as an emission pump and an emission pipe, ( and equivalents thereto ) as set forth, e.g., at para. 91 in the specification. claim 18: moving unit has been interpreted as a plate, an electric motor, and linear motor (and equivalents thereto) as set forth, e.g., at para. 96 in the specification. 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 § 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) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR Pub. 2014/0007565 to Oh in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0205769 to Lee. Regarding claim 18: In Figs. 4-10, Oh discloses an apparatus capable of manufacturing a display device substantially as claimed and comprising: an gas exhaust unit including a plurality of main exhaust paths (e.g., A-D) respectively partitioned by a plurality of partitions (four extensions of 140) disposed side by side along a first direction (i.e. horizontal rotation direction); a gas spray unit including a plurality of spray portions (gas supply holes in 130, 132, 134 and 136 ) respectively disposed in the plurality of main exhaust paths and configured to spray gas in a second direction (e.g., vertically) different from the first direction; a moving unit (e.g., 1 10) disposed below the gas exhaust unit and the gas spray unit and configured to move a substrate ( 1 22); a chamber ( 1 00) surrounding the gas exhaust unit, the gas spray unit and the moving unit, wherein the moving unit is configured to move the substrate in a space of the chamber under the gas exhaust unit; a gas supply unit (a storage tank – gas supply source [not shown, see translation] , a common pipe -- e.g., 10, and a supply pipe -- e.g., 130, 132, 134 and 136 ) connected to the gas spray unit and configured to supply gas to the gas spray unit; and a gas emission unit ( e.g., an emission pump – 152, and an emission pipe -- 150 ) connected to the gas exhaust unit and configured to emit the gas exhausted from the gas exhaust unit to the outside; wherein each partition of the plurality of partitions includes: a horizontal tunnel ( Fig. 7, horizonal 144) connecting adjacent main exhaust paths with each other among the main exhaust paths, and a vertical tunnel ( Fig. 7, 142 and vertical 144 ) connecting the space of the chamber to the hori zontal tunnel. While Oh does disclose a moving unit having plate (110) disposed below the gas exhaust unit and the gas spray unit and configured to move the substrate, Oh et al. fail to explicitly disclose the moving unit including an electric motor and a linear motor . Lee teaches that a gas exhaust unit and a gas spray unit may be moved with respect to a substrate by a moving unit (multiple structures including 124, 128, 114, 138, 210) moving a substrate linearly (Figs. 1-2) or rotatably (Fig. 3) and that various types of moving units (i.e. equivalent to claimed moving unit) may be used to affect the same such that the relative movement between the gas exhaust unit/gas spray unit and the moving unit is achieved to process the substrate (see, e.g., paras. 34-36). Additionally, Examiner notes that t he courts have ruled that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) ; and a n express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided in Oh a n equivalent variation of the moving unit therein for moving the substrate such that the gas exhaust unit and the gas spray unit are moved with respect to the substrate by the moving unit moving linearly, rotatably, etc. in order to achieve the of effect of relative movement between the gas exhaust unit/gas spray unit and the substrate to be processed such that the substrate is processed using the relative movement as taught by Lee. With respect to claim 19, Oh teaches that each of the plurality of spray portions includes/is a nozzle directing toward the space of the chamber in which the moving unit moves. As illustrated, the horizontal tunnel is provided at a lower level in the second direction than the nozzle. However, Oh teaches that the horizontal tunnel may be positioned at a higher level than the nozzle in the second direction in order to effect exhaust efficiency (see, e.g. see page 4 of translation ). With respect to claim 20, in modified Oh, a vertical length of the horizontal tunnel appears to be shorter than a vertical length of the vertical tunnel, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic at time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided them as such. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-8, 11-13 and 15-17 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the apparatus for manufacturing a substrate including a gas exhaust unit having main exhaust paths and a gas spray unit having spray portions disposed in the main exhaust paths, the spray portions for providing a processing gas to the substrate , and wherein in the context of the overall apparatus , inter alia, the gas exhaust unit further comprises at least one partition provided to connect adjacent main exhaust paths, wherein the at least one partition is provided internally with a sub exhaust path having a horizontal connection connecting to adjacent main exhaust paths and a vertical connection between the horizontal connection and a lower surface of the at least one partition connecting to a space where the substrate is located for manufacturing (i.e. gas processing) . KR 20140007565 and US P atent Pub. 2012/0141676 ( Sershen et al.) are considered the closest piece s of prior art . Oh discloses a partition as claimed but does not disclose the entirety of apparatus and in particular the gas exhaust unit as set forth in claim 1 . Sershen et al. discloses a similar apparatus with a gas spray unit and a gas exhaust unit with a plurality of exhaust paths and openings/ tunnels and gas spray units disposed within the exhaust paths . However, Sershen et al. does not provide for the exact relative arrangement of the gas spray unit and the gas exhaust unit and does not include the at least one partition with the configuration of openings and/or tunnels as claimed and as part of the entirety of the apparatus and in particular as part of t he gas exhaust unit as set forth in claim 1 . No other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious. See below for other relevant prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patents and Patent Pubs. 4446815 ; 5413671 ; 5938851 ; 11035040; 12462084; 20100230051; 20120141676 ; 20130108778; 20140174362; 20160226031 disclose space division type substrate manufacturing apparatus comprising a gas exhaust unit and gas spray portions similar to the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1440 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1435 . 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. /KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716