DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Oath/Declaration
3. The receipt of Oath/Declaration is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawing(s) filed on 12/20/2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Status of Claims
6. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
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.
7. 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.
8. 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:
“a size information generating unit”; “an entire cell polygon information generating unit”; “an edge polygon information generating unit”; “a group-specific cell polygon information generating unit”; “a halftoning unit; “a droplet image management unit” “a coordinate converting unit”; “a fence polygon information generating unit”; “a cell rasterizing unit”; “a fence rasterizing unit”; “an edge rasterizing unit”; and “a droplet image management unit”.
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 Objections
9. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20, lines 11-12 please change “cell polygon information generating unit” to “entire cell polygon information generating unit” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
13. 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.
14. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Veerman (NL 2008066 C2), in view of Baker et al. (KR 10-2185496).
Regarding Claim 1:
Veerman discloses a droplet processing device comprising:
an inkjet system which receives a droplet image and applies ink for the droplet image to be printed on a substrate; and
“the present invention relates to an inkjet system and method for printing an ink pattern on a substrate…the ink pattern is an integrated circuit (IC) pattern.” (Page 1, lines 1-6).
“the inkjet system comprises at least one inkjet print head for ejecting a droplet of ink onto the substrate. The inkjet system comprises a substrate positioning stage for carrying and moving the substrate” (page 12, lines 23-29).
a droplet image generating terminal which transmits the droplet image to the inkjet system,
Veerman discloses “a pattern layout L is received by control electronics of an inkjet system. The control electronics comprise a software to convert the pattern layout to an ink pattern…The logic I provides output data which is used to control at least one print head of the inkjet system…The first and second output data are subsequently processed to print the ink pattern.” (page 12, lines 23-35; Fig. 1A).
wherein the droplet image is generated by collecting a plurality of cell print data printed on the substrate and a peripheral print data printed on a periphery of the cell into single polygonal information,
Veerman discloses collecting cell print data (inner region) and peripheral print data (contour) into single polygonal information in the form of the complete IC pattern layout P, from which both the discrete contour layer and discrete inner region layer are extracted by logic I. (Fig. 1a (complete pattern layout L/logic I/contour output data 1[peripheral] + inner region output data 2 [cell]); page 3, lines 15-20.
Veerman discloses “the contour print algorithm comprises a coverage algorithm for converting at least a part of the contour into a set of coverage elements before generating the set of droplet positions...The coverage element may be a simplified form of the at least part of the contour.” (page 8, line 33 – page 9, line 3).
Veerman further discloses “After printing both the contour C and the inner region F, the final ink pattern P is obtained.” (page 3, lines 2-3).
rasterizing the collected polygonal information and
Veerman discloses “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets. The raster may have a plurality of raster cells in which the contour algorithm may generate a droplet position for each raster cell which is covered for a certain amount.” (page 13, lines 20-23).
Veerman does not expressly disclose rasterizing the collected polygonal information and then halftoning.
Baker discloses rasterizing the collected polygonal information and then halftoning.
Baker discloses an inkjet system for flat panel display substrate manufacturing wherein rasterized print data undergoes halftoning to control the thickness and uniformity of the deposited ink layer.
“Halftoning (i.e., ink density) and/or template adjustments can incorporate these changes (or correct them for these changes), so that erroneous nozzles and/or droplet locations and/or volumes changes can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13).
Veerman in view of Baker are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (inkjet-based deposition of functional material onto flat panel display or IC substrates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baker’s halftoning to Veerman’s rasterized IC pattern data. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to achieve uniform ink density control per substrate cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman with Baker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
15. Claims 2-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerman in view of Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 8,248,656).
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Veerman in view of Baker further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 1, but do not expressly disclose wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a size information generating unit which generates a size information of each cell by parsing a circuit pattern file for the cells generated on the substrate.
Lin discloses wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a size information generating unit which generates a size information of each cell by parsing a circuit pattern file for the cells generated on the substrate.
Note: Veerman discloses receiving an IC pattern layout image file representing a circuit pattern which implies the size of each cell (Veerman: page 3, lines 33-34).
Note: Veerman also discloses separating the received pattern layout into contour layer and an inner layer which is analogous to the claimed ‘parsing’ (Veerman: bottom of page 3 to top of page 4)
Lin disclose a ‘pattern recognition module 430’ (Fig. 4A) that explicitly parses a circuit pattern file in Gerber format which is well known format for specifying cell dimensions and layout on IC/PCB substracts. (Col. 1, lines 35-46)
Lin further discloses “FIG. 2A illustrates incorrect print head driving waveforms 370-1, 370-2 . . . 370-8, which results in the corresponding droplets 374-1, 374-2 . . . 374-8 having incorrect sizes or position shifts. For example, the droplet 374-4 is too small and has wrong position, and the droplet 374-4 is too large and also has wrong position. Correct print head driving waveforms 380-1, 380-2 . . . 380-8 and correct sizes and positions of droplets 384-1, 384-2 . . . 384-8 are obtained through rotating the PMD print head and adjusting the operation clock, as shown in FIG. 2B. (Col. 2 lines 12-21).
Veerman, Baker & Lin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a size information generating unit which generates a size information of each cell by parsing a circuit pattern file for the cells generated on the substrate.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to control various nozzles to achieve better droplet control as disclosed by Lin in the Background of Invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker & Lin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 2, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes an entire cell polygon information generating unit, which interworks with the size information generating unit and generates entire cell polygon information by collecting the size information of the cells:
Veerman discloses that the software logic collects the complete IC pattern layout into contour and inner region layers encompassing all cell of the substrate pattern. “A pattern layout may represent a complete 1C pattern” (page 5, lines 4-5).
the final ink pattern P represents the collected entirety of all cell polygon data; (bottom of page 12 to top of page 13).
Fig. 1A ‘logic I receives complete pattern layout L and generates output data covering all cells’.
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 3, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes an edge polygon information generating unit which interworks with the entire cell polygon information generating unit and generates edge polygon information in an edge region of the entire cell polygon information.
Veerman directly discloses generating a discrete contour layer corresponding to the edge/boundary region of the IC pattern, separate from the inner layer.
“the pattern layout is separated in at least one step into at least one discrete contour layer comprising at least one contour part” (page 3, lines 15-19). Fig. 1A data output 1 is extracted as the edge/boundary of the complete pattern layout.
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 4, wherein the edge polygon information is formed by applying a scale factor to the entire cell polygon information to increase or decrease the entire cell polygon information by a certain percentage.
Veerman discloses applying an ink flow algorithm that measures the width deviation between the printed pattern and the desired pattern layout, and compensates by adjusting droplet positions and/or sizes, effectively scaling the contour edge boundary by a measured correction factor.
Veerman discloses “a width of a test pattern is measured and compared with a pattern layout to determine a deficiency and to determine the ink flow parameter to compensate for the deficiency.” (page 11, lines 10-12).
Figs. 7a and 7b (test pattern width measurement and correction). This ink flow correction is a percentage based scaling of the edge boundary relative to the entire polygon.
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 4, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a group-specific cell polygon information generating unit, which interworks with the edge polygon information generating unit, and generates group-specific cell polygon information by grouping each of the cells in the entire cell polygon information.
Veerman discloses subdividing the complete IC pattern layout into pattern layout layers based on classification of contour orientations, grouping cells whose contour portions share the same orientation class into separate groups for independent processing.
Veerman discloses “The first pattern layout layer comprising contours of the first class may be completely printed in which both the contour and the inner region are included before starting a printing step in which the second pattern layout layer is printed which comprises contours of the second class” (page 6, lines 5-9; pages 7-8 of Veerman discloses the classification system for the first, second and third contour classes).
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 6, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a coordinate converting unit, which interworks with the entire cell polygon information generating unit, the edge polygon information generating unit, and the group-specific cell polygon information generating unit, and coordinates vertices that make up the entire cell polygon information, the edge polygon information, and the group-specific cell polygon information, respectively, and converts the coordinated vertices into vertex coordinate information.
Veerman discloses converting contour vertex coordinates through a quadrant mirroring and reconversion operation. “The conversion to the first quadrant may be obtained by mirroring an orientation about the first and/or second reference axis. After applying a selected contour print algorithm, the at least part of the contour of the pattern layout is converted to a set of contour droplet positions. Subsequently, the set of contour droplet positions which are determined for the first quadrant are reconverted to the second, 30 third or fourth quadrant. After the reconversion, the final set of positions are obtained” (page 8, lines 25-30).
Regarding Claim 8:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 7, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a fence polygon information generating unit, which interworks with the entire cell polygon information generating unit and generates a fence polygon information based on the entire cell polygon information.
Veerman discloses a boundary zone between the contour (edge) region and the fill (inner cell) region, defined as an outer edge derived from the entire cell polygon. “The inner region F can be defined as the pattern layout in which an outer edge which defines the contour is subtracted. The outer edge may have a width of at least one contour droplets. Preferably, the outer edge has a width of one contour droplet.” (Fig. 1b; page 13, lines 4-17).
Further, the contour print algorithm explicitly includes “a parameter defining a distance between a contour droplet and a fill-in droplet” (page 10, lines 4-6) which defines and controls this fence/boundary zone between the edge (contour) region and the fill (cell) region, derived from and interworking with the entire cell polygon.
Regarding Claim 9:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 8, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a cell rasterizing unit, which interworks with the coordinate converting unit and generates a cell raster image by rasterizing the vertex coordinate information.
Veerman discloses the rasterizing algorithm projecting contour and inner region coordinate/vertex data onto a raster grid to generate raster images. “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets. The raster may have a plurality of raster cells in which the contour algorithm may generate a droplet position for each raster cell which is covered for a certain amount.” (page 13, lines 20-23).
Regarding Claim 10:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 1, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a fence rasterizing unit, which interworks with the fence polygon information generating unit and generates a fence raster image by rasterizing the fence polygon information.
Veerman discloses applying its rasterizing algorithm to the boundary/fence zone between contour and fill regions. “a parameter defining a distance between a contour droplet and a fill-in droplet” (page 10, lines 3-5). The fence/boundary zone is converted to droplet positions by the rasterizing algorithm.
Regarding Claim 11:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 10, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes an edge rasterizing unit, which interworks with the edge polygon information generating unit and generates an edge raster image by rasterizing the edge polygon information.
Veerman explicitly discloses rasterizing the contour/edge layer data. “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets.” (page 13, lines 20-23; Fig. 1A (contour data 1/contour print algorithm/edge raster image C).
Regarding Claim 16:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 11, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a halftoning unit which generates a cell halftone image, a fence halftone image, and an edge halftone image by halftoning each of the cell raster image, the fence raster image, and the edge raster image.
Baker discloses a halftoning unit applied to rasterized print data for ink density control across substrate regions. “Halftoning (i.e., ink density) 11 and/or template adjustments can incorporate (or correct for these changes) so that changes in the 12 position and/or volume of misfunctioning nozzles and/or droplets can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13)
Veerman, Baker & Lin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor (inkjet-based deposition of functional material onto flat panel display or IC substrates). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Baker’s per-region halftoning in the three-layer raster structure of Veerman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to achieve uniform ink density control per substrate cell. Applying halftoning independently to each of the three regions has distinct ink deposition requirements which warrant independent halftone control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker & Lin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 16, wherein the droplet image generating terminal further includes a droplet image management unit which stores the cell halftone image, the fence halftone image, and the edge halftone image as the droplet image, and transmits the droplet image to the inkjet system.
Veerman discloses that the control electronics process and transmit contour and inner region data to the print heads. (page 12, line 28- page 13, line 3).
16. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerman, Baker & Lin as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0030802).
Regarding Claim 12:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker & Lin further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 11, wherein the cell raster image, the fence raster image, and the edge raster image are formed in an image
Veerman discloses the rasterizing algorithm projecting contour and inner region coordinate/vertex data onto a raster grid to generate raster images. “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets. The raster may have a plurality of raster cells in which the contour algorithm may generate a droplet position for each raster cell which is covered for a certain amount.” (page 13, lines 20-23).
Veerman discloses applying its rasterizing algorithm to the boundary/fence zone between contour and fill regions. “a parameter defining a distance between a contour droplet and a fill-in droplet” (page 10, lines 3-5). The fence/boundary zone is converted to droplet positions by the rasterizing algorithm.
Veerman explicitly discloses rasterizing the contour/edge layer data. “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets.” (page 13, lines 20-23; Fig. 1A (contour data 1/contour print algorithm/edge raster image C).
Veerman, Baker & Lin further do not expressly disclose wherein the cell raster image, the fence raster image, and the edge raster image are formed in an image of 16 BPP or more.
Kim discloses wherein the cell raster image, the fence raster image, and the edge raster image are formed in an image of 16 BPP or more.
Kim discloses an inkjet printing method for display substrate manufacturing in which raster images are processed using 256 gray levels per color channel. “the intermediate gray is a 127 gray or a 128 gray for 256 gray” (claim 5). A 256-gray (8-bit) level per color channel, applied across three primary color channels (red, green, blue) of the vector and raster images of Kim, see claim 2 “wherein the vector image only includes primary colors or a color equivalent to the primary colors included in the color table”, yields a raster image of 8 bits/channel x 3 channels = 24 BPP which satisfies “16 BPP or more”.
Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the raster images of Veerman’s three-layer data processing pipeline (contour/inner region/boundary) at the 24 BPP standard taught by Kim, as both references are directed to inkjet deposition on display substrates requiring high-precision per-pixel data encoding. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is that the 256-gray/24 BPP standard is the appropriate precision level for distinguishing region types in inkjet substrate manufacturing as disclosed by Kim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim further disclose the droplet processing device of claim 12, wherein the image formed in the 16 BPP or more is that a region information is generated in any one of color information for a red channel, a green channel, and a blue channel.
Kim directly discloses encoding region classification data into specific primary color channels of the raster image. Kim’s color table maps each distinct region type of the shape drawing to a designated primary color (red, green, blue, cyan, yellow, or magenta), such that each pixel’s color channel value encodes the region identity of that pixel’s location withing the substrate pattern. See Kim’s claim 1 “creating an image for an inkjet printing based on a color table or a boundary table”; claim 2 “the vector image only includes primary colors or a color equivalent to the primary colors included in the color table”.
Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s color table channel-encoding technique to the three-layer raster processing pipeline of Veerman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to encode distinct spatial region types of in inkjet substrate pattern into a raster image for per region droplet control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim further disclose the droplet processing device of claim 13, wherein the image formed in the 16 BPP or more is that a thickness information is generated in at least one color information, except for the color information in which the region information is generated, among the color information for the red channel, the green channel, and the blue channel.
Veerman discloses an ink flow algorithm that measures and compensates for ink pattern width deviations between the printed pattern and the pattern layout, specifically the width W of printed coverage elements at boundary zones. See Veerman, page 11, lines 4-13; Figs. 6a-6c. Veerman does not expressly teach per-pixel ink layer thickness (vertical dimension).
Kim discloses that the at boundary/overlap sections between adjacent regions, the raster image encodes a color value separate and distinct from the primary color used to encode the region identity of adjacent regions, specifically, an intermediate gray value derived from combining two or more primary colors. “the color equivalent to the primary colors is a color formed by combining two or more colors of the primary colors into an intermediate gray” (claim 4). This intermediate gray value occupies color channel space separate from the designated region identity channels, encoding the distinct per pixel ink deposition quantity data (thickness) at that boundary pixel in the remaining channel(s).
Further, Baker establishes that the per pixel ink thickness/density is a critical data element in display substrate manufacturing. “Halftoning (i.e., ink density) 11 and/or template adjustments can incorporate (or correct for these changes) so that changes in the 12 position and/or volume of misfunctioning nozzles and/or droplets can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13).
Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein the image formed in the 16 BPP or more is that a thickness information is generated in at least one color information, except for the color information in which the region information is generated, among the color information for the red channel, the green channel, and the blue channel. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to encode per pixel thickness information into the remaining available RGB channel(s) separate from the region-identity channel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim further disclose the droplet processing device of claim 14, wherein a section in which each of the cell raster images, the fence raster images, and the edge raster images overlaps is a section to which an average value of the thickness information is applied.
Kim discloses applying an intermediate gray value, which is the mathematical average of the minimum (0) and maximum (255) gray values in a 256 gray system, at sections where adjacent raster regions overlap or contact one another. “the intermediate gray is a 127 gray or a 128 gray for 256 gray.” (Claim 5). A value of 127-128 out of 255 is the arithmetic average of the full value range (0+255)/2 = 127.5, applied precisely at the boundary/overlap section between adjacent region raster images. This directly maps to the claimed “average value of the thickness information” applied at the overlap section between cell, fence and edge raster images.
Further, Baker establishes that the per pixel ink thickness/density is a critical data element in display substrate manufacturing. “Halftoning (i.e., ink density) 11 and/or template adjustments can incorporate (or correct for these changes) so that changes in the 12 position and/or volume of misfunctioning nozzles and/or droplets can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13).
Veerman further confirms the necessity of accounting for overlap at boundary zones between contour and inner region layers. See Veerman 6a-6c (narrowing/overlap interaction between adjacent contour and fill elements).
Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose wherein a section in which each of the cell raster images, the fence raster images, and the edge raster images overlaps is a section to which an average value of the thickness information is applied. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is yield uniform ink deposition at boundary zones and prevent over-disposition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Baker, Lin & Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
17. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerman (NL 2008066 C2), in view of Kim et al. (US 2023/0030802).
Regarding Claim 18:
Veerman discloses a droplet processing device comprising:
an inkjet system which receives a droplet image and applies ink for the droplet image to be printed on a substrate; and
“the present invention relates to an inkjet system and method for printing an ink pattern on a substrate…the ink pattern is an integrated circuit (IC) pattern.” (Page 1, lines 1-6).
“the inkjet system comprises at least one inkjet print head for ejecting a droplet of ink onto the substrate. The inkjet system comprises a substrate positioning stage for carrying and moving the substrate” (page 12, lines 23-29).
a droplet image generating terminal which transmits the droplet image to the inkjet system,
Veerman discloses “a pattern layout L is received by control electronics of an inkjet system. The control electronics comprise a software to convert the pattern layout to an ink pattern…The logic I provides output data which is used to control at least one print head of the inkjet system…The first and second output data are subsequently processed to print the ink pattern.” (page 12, lines 23-35; Fig. 1A).
wherein the droplet image is rasterized into an image
Veerman discloses “The contour print algorithm is e.g. a rasterizing algorithm, wherein the contour data is projected onto a raster to obtain a distribution for contour droplets. The raster may have a plurality of raster cells in which the contour algorithm may generate a droplet position for each raster cell which is covered for a certain amount.” (page 13, lines 20-23).
Veerman does not expressly disclose wherein the droplet image is rasterized into an image of 16 BPP or more during rasterization, and is that a region information is generated in any one of color information for a red channel, a green channel, and a blue channel within the image of 16 BPP or more.
Kim discloses wherein the droplet image is rasterized into an image of 16 BPP or more during rasterization, and is that a region information is generated in any one of color information for a red channel, a green channel, and a blue channel within the image of 16 BPP or more.
Kim discloses an inkjet printing method for display substrate manufacturing in which raster images are processed using 256 gray levels per color channel. “the intermediate gray is a 127 gray or a 128 gray for 256 gray” (claim 5). A 256-gray (8-bit) level per color channel, applied across three primary color channels (red, green, blue) of the vector and raster images of Kim (see claim 2) “wherein the vector image only includes primary colors or a color equivalent to the primary colors included in the color table”, yields a raster image of 8 bits/channel x 3 channels = 24 BPP which satisfies “16 BPP or more”.
Kim, Abstract, and claims 1 and 2 (color table encoding region types into R/G/B primary color channels)
Veerman in view of Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kim’s channel encoding technique to the rasterized IC pattern image to encode region classification data into an available RGB channel as disclosed by Veerman. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to enable compact transmission of all per pixel data in a single standard image buffer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman and Kim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
18. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerman in view of Kim, and further in view of Baker et al. (KR 10-2185496).
Regarding Claim 19:
The proposed combination of Veerman in view of Kim further discloses the droplet processing device of claim 18, wherein information, except for the color information in which the region information is generated, among the information for the red channel, the green channel, and the blue channel.
Veerman discloses an ink flow algorithm that measures and compensates for ink pattern width deviations between the printed pattern and the pattern layout, specifically the width W of printed coverage elements at boundary zones. See Veerman, page 11, lines 4-13; Figs. 6a-6c. Veerman does not expressly teach per-pixel ink layer thickness (vertical dimension).
Kim discloses that the at boundary/overlap sections between adjacent regions, the raster image encodes a color value separate and distinct from the primary color used to encode the region identity of adjacent regions, specifically, an intermediate gray value derived from combining two or more primary colors. “the color equivalent to the primary colors is a color formed by combining two or more colors of the primary colors into an intermediate gray” (claim 4). This intermediate gray value occupies color channel space separate from the designated region identity channels, encoding the distinct per pixel ink deposition quantity data (thickness) at that boundary pixel in the remaining channel(s).
Veerman in view of Kim do not expressly disclose wherein thickness information is generated in at least one color information.
Baker discloses wherein thickness information is generated in at least one color information.
Baker discloses an inkjet system for flat panel display substrate manufacturing wherein rasterized print data undergoes halftoning to control the thickness and uniformity of the deposited ink layer.
“Halftoning (i.e., ink density) and/or template adjustments can incorporate these changes (or correct them for these changes), so that erroneous nozzles and/or droplet locations and/or volumes changes can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13).
Baker establishes that the per pixel ink thickness/density is a critical data element in display substrate manufacturing. “Halftoning (i.e., ink density) 11 and/or template adjustments can incorporate (or correct for these changes) so that changes in the 12 position and/or volume of misfunctioning nozzles and/or droplets can be corrected.” (page 28, lines 11-13).
Veerman, Baker, & Kim are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose apply Baker’s halftoning to Veerman’s rasterized IC pattern data. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is to encode per pixel thickness information into the remaining available RGB channel(s) separate from the region-identity channel, and to achieve uniform ink density control per substrate cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Veerman, Kim & Baker to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
19. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerman, Baker, Lin, and Kim.
Regarding Claim 20:
The proposed combination of Veerman, Baker, Lin , and Kim, explained in the rejection of device claims 1-17, renders obvious the steps of the device of claim 20 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed combination as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2-17 are equally applicable to claim 20.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frank (US 2016/0325555) discloses an inkjet printer as well as on a method for operating an inkjet printer, in which for at least one color at least two inks of the of the same color, but of varying color intensity are used, namely one ink of a lighter color intensity J.sub.h and an ink of a darker color intensity J.sub.d, where preferably to following applies: J.sub.d=2.sup.x*J.sub.h, with x for example being 2, 3 or 4. Then 2.sup.x is in these case 2.sup.2=4, or 2.sup.3=8, or 2.sup.4=16; whereat several ink drops are printed on one pixel on top of one another in quick succession, namely 0 . . . (2.sup.x−1) ink drops so that with the darker ink 2.sup.x brightness levels can be accomplished, and with the lighter ink likewise 2.sup.x brightness levels, what from altogether 2.sup.x*2.sup.x=2.sup.2x different brightness levels are resulting; and where the individual drops unite together during their flight or do not come loose from each other, resulting in only one single color drop per pixel on the printing substrate.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL R MCLEAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 6AM - 4PM, PST.
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/NEIL R MCLEAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681