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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are objected to for minor informalities.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Determination of a Recipe for a Forming Process Based on Pitch Ratio Between Droplets and Composition Defects
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 9-10 of claim 1, “the number of defects” should read “a number of defects” for proper antecedent basis. Claims 2-14 are objected to due to their dependencies.
In line 3 of claim 12, “a receipt” should read “a recipe”.
In lines 9-10 of claim 15, “the number of defects” should read “a number of defects” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 is objected to due to its dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se. Claim 15 recites “an information processing apparatus for determining a recipe for arranging a composition as a plurality of droplets on a substrate in a forming process of forming the composition on the substrate using a mold, executing” in the preamble. There are no structural limitations in either the preamble or body of the claim that render the “information processing apparatus” as being more than software. The broadest reasonable interpretation includes the “information processing apparatus” being a program that executes the steps recited in the body of the claim, rendering the claim as a whole to be directed to software per se. See MPEP 2106.03.I: “As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories.” “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation”
Claim 16 is not be considered software per se since it recites hardware components, namely “a discharger configured to discharge the composition as the plurality of droplets onto the substrate,” and a “controller configured to…,” which implies that the claimed “forming apparatus” is at least partially implemented in hardware.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closet prior art of record is HIRANO (US 2018/0329315 A1).
HIRANO teaches a determination method of determining a recipe for arranging a composition as a plurality of droplets on a substrate in a forming process of forming the composition on the substrate using a mold, comprising: (¶ 51, Fig. 4: recipe generator 420 used to determine a recipe comprising a plurality of droplets on a substrate in a forming process using a mold. See Figs. 1-3 and ¶ 32.)
setting a grid for defining a first pitch as a pitch in a first direction between the droplets and a second pitch as a pitch in a second direction between the droplets, the second direction intersecting the first direction; (Fig. 3, ¶ 49, Fig. 11, ¶ 118: A grid is set having a first pitch in a horizontal direction “L1” and a pitch in a vertical direction “L2”.)
HIRANO further teaches and determining the recipe based on the grid (Fig. 7A-7B, step S200, ¶ 79, 83, Fig. 11, ¶ 118: A recipe is determined based on analysis of defect regions formed during the forming process based on the positions of droplets on the grid.)
However, HIRANO does not teach the limitations wherein the grid is set, based on information representing a relationship between a pitch ratio as a ratio of the first pitch and the second pitch and the number of defects occurring in the composition in the forming process, so that the number of defects is smaller than a predetermined value.
The other prior art of record fail to cure the deficiencies of HIRANO.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 2017/0285464 A1) is directed to a pattern forming process and teaches that a number of defects are reduced when an aspect ratio of a pattern is below a predetermined value. (¶ 138)
Wakamatsu (US 2014/0131313 A1) teaches simulating different droplet arrangement patterns for a forming process to predict wet spreading of the droplets and adjust their arrangement if they do not match a predetermined height. (Abstract, Figs 2, 9, ¶ 33-34)
In other words, regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“determining the recipe based on the grid, wherein the grid is set, based on information representing a relationship between a pitch ratio as a ratio of the first pitch and the second pitch and the number of defects occurring in the composition in the forming process, so that the number of defects is smaller than a predetermined value”
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations:
“determining the recipe based on the grid, wherein the grid is set, based on information representing a relationship between a pitch ratio as a ratio of the first pitch and the second pitch and the number of defects occurring in the composition in the forming process, so that the number of defects is smaller than a predetermined value”
These limitations, in specific combination as required by claims 1 and 15, define the patentability of the claims. Dependent claims 2-14 and 16 are allowed for at least the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI RAFAT OKASHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, SCOTT BADERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/RAMI R OKASHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights