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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 1/15/2025 and 10/29/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3) (i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Those references that do not include a English language translation or statement of relevance are not considered. 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. 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: s upport module laser signal generation module c amera module 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 § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4, 7 , 10 -11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190287814 A1 by Supplieth Supplieth discloses a n apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chamber for providing a space where a substrate is processed (presence in a room meets this requirement and such would necessarily exists , support for substrate, see Figure 2 and accompanying text) ; a support module disposed within the chamber and for supporting the substrate (Figure 2 and ac companying text) ; and a laser signal generation module disposed in the chamber and for transmitting a laser signal onto the substrate to heat-treat the substrate, wherein the laser signal generation module heat-treats the substrate including a photoresist layer (Figure 2 and accompanying text) The examiner notes that the italicized features of the claims are determined to be mere intended use of the claimed structure and therefore do not limit the structure of the apparatus. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claims 2-4: T he examiner notes that the italicized substrate materials is intended use of the claimed structure and therefore do not limit the structure of the apparatus. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 7: The laser is in a first direction, perpendicular to a width direction of the substrate (see Figure 2 and accompanying text). Additionally, the orientation the substrate is intended use. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 10: Supplieth discloses a stage provided below the support module within the chamber, wherein the support module is moved on the stage (0024) Claim 11: Supplieth discloses the capability of a scanning direction of the laser signal is perpendicular to an emission direction of the laser signal (see 0024 related to movement in all direction). 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) 5-6, 8-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Supplieth taken collectively US Patent Application Publication 201503719 1 1 by McWhirter et al. Claim 5-6: Supplieth discloses all that is taught above and fails to disclose the laser signal generation module transmits a laser signal in a Mid-IR band; however, McWhirter discloses laser heating for semiconductor processing and discloses such laser heating can include mid IR fiber laser and/or CO2 lasers (0024) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified the prior art to include the known and suitable laser system, including mid-IR band or with the wavelength as claimed (see 0024 stating 10.6 microns). Claim 8: McWhirter discloses the change of the angle (0018, 0033) and therefore using an adjustable laser emission angle would have been obvious in view of the disclosure of McWhirter. Claim 9: Supplieth discloses a camera and McWhirter discloses a camera (0031) and adjusting the angle will be intended use of the claimed apparatus. Claim 20: The combination of references discloses and makes obvious apparatus for processing a substrate comprising: a chamber for providing a space where a substrate is processed ; a support module disposed within the chamber a nd for supporting the substrate ; and a laser signal generation module disposed in the chamber and for transmitting a laser signal onto the substrate to heat-treat the substrate, wherein the substrate includes a plurality of layers , wherein the laser signal generation module selectively heats some layers among the plurality of layers, and the some layers include the photoresist layer and a polymer layer (see rejection with respect to Supplieth above) , wherein the laser signal generation module transmits a laser signal in a Mid-IR band, and the laser signal has a wavelength of 3 μm to 50 μm , wherein the laser signal generation module incidents the laser signal on the substrate in a first direction, where the first direction is perpendicular to a width direction of the substrate, wherein a scanning direction of the laser signal is perpendicular to an emission direction of the laser signal (as it relate to the combination of Supplieth with McWhirter). The examiner notes that the italicized features of the claims are determined to be mere intended use of the claimed structure and therefore do not limit the structure of the apparatus. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Supplieth taken collectively with McWhirter and further with US Patent Application Publication 20070054443 by Shimomura. Supplieth taken collectively with McWhirter discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the particulars of the laser module. However, Shimonura , also in the art to laser application to a semiconductor device disclose a laser generating module includes a first laser diode for generating and outputting a first laser signal ; a second laser diode for generating and outputting a second laser signa l; a pump combiner for combining the first laser signal and the second laser signal ; an external transmission part for transmitting a combined laser signal obtained by combining the first laser signal and the second laser signal to an outside ; and a plurality of optical fibers for interconnecting the first laser diode and the pump combiner, the second laser diode and the pump combiner, and the pump combiner and the external transmission part (see Embodiment 1, specifically 00052, 0053” The excited light combiner 102 combines excited light emitted from a plurality of the laser diodes 101 ”, “ one laser diode 101 and the fiber bragg grating 103 may be connected to each other directly through the fiber cable 107 . . . , see also Figure 4 and accompanying text ). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Supplieth taken collectively with McWhirter to generate the laser heating source via a plurality of diodes combined via optical fibers as claimed as such is a well known method for providing lasers to the surface of a substrate for heating. Claim (s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Supplieth taken collectively with McWhirter and Shimomura and further with US Patent 10 0 84287 by Bernier et al. Supplieth with McWhirter and Shimomu ra discloses all that is taught above and fails to disclose specifics of the optical fibers within the laser. However, Shimomura discloses using various optical fibers for combining the laser diodes (see Figure 4) and Berner discloses a laser system including the plurality of optical fibers and discloses the splicing of varying optical fibers materials to control the wavelength of the laser diode (see e.g. Figure 9-11 and accompanying text) as well as multiple “fibers” that include a material of the same component (Figure 2A-2B and accompanying text, column 7, lines 15-40). Berner discloses the properties of the optical fibers control the guiding properties of the light from the diode. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have provide a first optical fiber for connecting the first laser diode and the pump combiner ; a second optical fiber, a third optical fiber, and a fourth optical fiber for connecting the second laser diode and the pump combiner ; and a fifth optical fiber and a sixth optical fiber f or connecting the pump combiner and the external transmission par t as Shimomura discloses using varying number of optical fibers to connect the varying parts of the laser to reap the benefits of controlling the guiding properties. Claim 14: Bernier discloses such at Figure 2A and 2B. Claim 15: Shimomura discloses varying shapes at Figure 4 (i.e. shape of individual fibers path is different) , Bernier discloses varying shapes at Figure 9 (see size of fiber, i.e. shape, is different) . Claim 16: Bernier discloses varying materials for the different optical fibers, i.e. fibers and end cap (Figure 2A and 2B and accompanying text, Column 11, lines 22-35). Claim 17: Bernier discloses fluoride fiber laser (Column 11, 35-48). Claim (s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW 202147395, hereinafter TW 395 taken collectively with Supplieth . TW 395 discloses a semiconductor manufacturing equipment comprising: a transfer module including a substrate transport robot for transporting a substrate (see e.g. Figure 8, F5) ; a plurality of first substrate processing apparatuses disposed on one side of the transfer module (see e.g. Figure 8, 58, see also Figure 7, 51) ; and a plurality of second substrate processing apparatuses disposed on the other side of the transfer module (see e.g. Figure 8, 4E, 4F, Figure 7, 4A) , wherein the first substrate processing apparatus comprises, a chamber for providing a space where a substrate is processed ; a support module disposed within the chamber and for supporting the substrate (Figure 8 and accompanying , 58 related to supporting substrate for heating, Figure 7, 51 related to heating) . TW 395 discloses heating module; however, fails to disclose the claimed laser signal generating module. However, Supplieth , also in the art of heating a substrate discloses using a laser signal generation module disposed in the chamber and for transmitting a laser signal onto the substrate to heat-treat the substrate , wherein the laser signal generation module heat- treats the substrate including a photoresist layer . Therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have modified TW 395 to include the laser module as suggested by Supplieth to provide heating with a reasonable expectation of predictable results. While the prior art sufficiently meets the intended use of the claims as drafted, the examiner notes that the italicized features of the claims are determined to be mere intended use of the claimed structure and therefore do not limit the structure of the apparatus. As such, as the prior art cited herein is capable of being utilized as claimed, the examiner maintains that the prior art structure reads on the instant structure. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 19: TW 395 discloses the second substrate processing apparatus includes a third substrate processing apparatus for performing a coating process on the substrate (see Figure 7, 4A) and a fourth substrate processing apparatus for performing a developing process on the substrate (See e.g. Figure 8, 4E) , wherein the first substrate processing apparatus is arranged side by side on the same floor and on the same side as at least one of the third substrate processing apparatus and the fourth substrate processing apparatus (see e.g. Figure 8 and Figure 7) . Additionally, while the examiner maintains the spatial arrangement of the first and third or first and fourth apparatus as explicitly taught by TW 395, the examiner notes that the arrangement of such would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as rearrangement of parts and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to place the heating module relative to the coating and developing module , since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse , 86 USPQ 70. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2940 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m . 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 Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5166 . 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. /DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718