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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, claims 1-8, 10-14 and 20, in the reply filed on 59 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 15-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the aforementioned reply.
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) 1-7 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0243971 to Thompson et al.
Regarding claim 1: Thompson et al. disclose a substrate processing device comprising: a substrate support portion (Figs. 1-12; 65/66) supporting a substrate (60); a fluid supply portion (30) arranged above the substrate support portion and capable of supplying and initiator and a monomer toward a substrate (note the initiator and the monomer are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather contents/materials that may be used during an intended use of the apparatus); and a laser generation portion (171 and 171b) configured to irradiate a laser in a direction intersecting a direction in which the initiator and the monomer are supplied and parallel to a surface of the substrate (also see, e.g., para. 51, also note the substrate and the surface thereof are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather an article worked upon during an intended use of the apparatus), wherein the initiator and the monomer are capable of being polymerized by the laser and deposited on the substrate as in intended use of the apparatus/device. Regarding intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claim 2, in Thompson et al., device may further comprise at least one mirror (e.g. Figs 11 and 12, 175 and 175b) for reflecting the laser, wherein the at least one mirror is located on a traveling path of the laser and extends the traveling path of the laser.
With respect to claim 3, in Thompson et al., the device may further comprise an air blower (e.g. purge gas source, purge gas flow controller and a purge gas injector), wherein the air blower is configured to perform an air blowing operation to prevent at least one of the initiator and the monomer from being deposited on the laser generation portion (see, e.g., para. 62). Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 4, which is solely drawn to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 5, in Thompson et al., the substrate support portion is capable or rotating (see, e.g., para. 43).
With respect to claim 6, in Thompson et al., the fluid supply portion comprises a plurality of spray pipes (e.g. 125 and 135). With respect to individually controlling at least one of a spray speed and a pressure of each of the plurality of spray pipes, see above regarding intended use.
Regarding claim 7: Thompson et al. disclose a substrate processing device comprising: a substrate support portion (Figs. 1-12; 65/66) supporting a substrate (60); an injection pipe (e.g. 125 and 135) arranged above the substrate and capable of injecting an initiator and a monomer (note the initiator and the monomer are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather contents/materials that may be used during an intended use of the apparatus); a plurality of spray pipes (e.g. 120 and 130) capable of spraying the initiator and the monomer toward the substrate in a vertically downward direction; and a laser generation portion (171 and 171b) configured to irradiate a laser in a horizontal direction intersecting the vertically downward direction (also see, e.g., para. 51, also note the substrate and the surface thereof are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather an article worked upon during an intended use of the apparatus), wherein the initiator and the monomer are capable of being polymerized by the laser and deposited on the substrate as in intended use of the apparatus/device. Regarding intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
With respect to claim 10, in Thompson et al., and features directed to intended use such as individually controlling at least one of a spray speed and a pressure of each of the plurality of spray pipes, see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 11, in Thompson et al., device may further comprise at least one mirror (e.g. Figs 11 and 12, 175 and 175b) for reflecting the laser, wherein the at least one mirror is located on a traveling path of the laser and extends the traveling path of the laser.
With respect to claim 12-13, in Thompson et al., the device may further comprise an air blower (e.g. purge gas source, purge gas flow controller and a purge gas injector), wherein the air blower is capable of performing an air blowing operation to prevent at least one of the initiator and the monomer from being deposited on the at least one mirror, wherein Thompson, et al. teaches that the air may direct airflow anywhere throughout the processing chamber (which would include preventing deposition on the mirror and flow in a vertically downward direction) (see, e.g., para. 62). Also see above regarding intended use.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10 and 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 4,726,320 in view of Ichikawa.
Regarding claim 1: Ichikawa discloses a substrate processing device comprising: a substrate support portion (Fig. 5, 5) supporting a substrate (6); a fluid supply portion (all of 11 and all of 12) arranged above the an injection pipe (e.g. all of 11) arranged above the substrate (when viewed with substrate support portion rotated to bottom of reaction chamber) and capable of injecting an initiator and a monomer toward the substrate (note the initiator and the monomer are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather contents/materials that may be used during an intended use of the apparatus); and a laser generation portion (light source, not shown, forming laser beam 2) capable of irradiating a laser in a direction a direction in which the initiator and the monomer are supplied and parallel to a surface of the substrate (note the substrate and the surface thereof are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather an article worked upon during an intended use of the apparatus), wherein the initiator and the monomer are capable of being polymerized by the laser and deposited on the substrate as an intended use of the apparatus/device. Regarding intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The rejection above is considered proper in that neither the claim, nor the prior art necessitate or preclude a particular overall orientation of the claimed substrate processing device, and generic rotation thereof (or viewing the overall device with rotation) does not change the overall structure thereof. Nevertheless, as an alternative to the anticipation rejection, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have a substrate located at a bottom of the reaction chamber as is commonly known and as-is illustrated in Fig. 3, for example.
With respect to claim 4, which is solely drawn to an intended use of the claimed apparatus, see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 6, in Ichikawa, the fluid supply portion comprises a plurality of spray pipes (e.g. 11). With respect to individually controlling at least one of a spray speed and a pressure of each of the plurality of spray pipes, see above regarding intended use.
Regarding claim 7: Ichikawa discloses a substrate processing device comprising: a substrate support portion (Fig. 5, 5) supporting a substrate (6); an injection pipe (e.g. all of 11) arranged above the substrate and capable of injecting an initiator and a monomer (note the initiator and the monomer are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather contents/materials that may be used during an intended use of the apparatus); a plurality of spray pipes (e.g. all of 12) capable of spraying the initiator and the monomer toward the substrate in a vertically downward direction substrate (when viewed with substrate support portion rotated to bottom of reaction chamber); and a laser generation portion (light source, not shown, forming laser beam 2) configured to irradiate a laser in a horizontal direction intersecting the vertically downward direction (note the substrate and the surface thereof are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather an article worked upon during an intended use of the apparatus), wherein the initiator and the monomer are capable of being polymerized by the laser and deposited on the substrate as in intended use of the apparatus/device. Regarding intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The rejection above is considered proper in that neither the claim, nor the prior art necessitate or preclude a particular overall orientation of the claimed substrate processing device, and generic rotation thereof (or viewing the overall device with rotation) does not change the overall structure thereof. Nevertheless, as an alternative to the anticipation rejection, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have a substrate located at a bottom of the reaction chamber as is commonly known and as-is illustrated in Fig. 3, for example.
With respect to claim 8, in Ichikawa, the laser generation portion is capable of irradiating the laser into the plurality of spray pipes, and the plurality of spray pipes are capable of spraying a radical of the initiator. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 10, in Ichikawa, and features directed to intended use such as individually controlling at least one of a spray speed and a pressure of each of the plurality of spray pipes, see above regarding intended use.
Regarding claim 14: Ichikawa discloses a substrate processing device comprising: a substrate support portion (Fig. 5, 5) supporting a substrate (6); a fluid supply portion (all 11 and all 12) arranged above the substrate support portion and capable of supplying an initiator and a monomer toward the substrate (note the initiator and the monomer are not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather contents/materials that may be used during an intended use of the apparatus); and a laser generation portion (light source, not shown, forming laser beam 2) capable of irradiating a laser into the fluid supply portion, wherein the fluid supply portion comprises: a first surface (surfaces of 11) in which an injection pipe (12) is formed, the injection pipe capable of injecting the initiator and the monomer into the fluid supply portion; and a second surface (surface of 12) onto which the laser is irradiated, wherein the first surface and the second surface meet each other (note the substrate is not considered features of the claimed apparatus/device, rather an article worked upon during an intended use of the apparatus), wherein the initiator and the monomer are capable of being polymerized by the laser and deposited on the substrate as in intended use of the apparatus/device. Regarding intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled that a claim containing 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” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); and the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The rejection above is considered proper in that neither the claim, nor the prior art necessitate or preclude a particular overall orientation of the claimed substrate processing device, and generic rotation thereof (or viewing the overall device with rotation) does not change the overall structure thereof. Nevertheless, as an alternative to the anticipation rejection, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic to have a substrate located at a bottom of the reaction chamber as is commonly known and as-is illustrated in Fig. 3, for example.
With respect to claim 20, in Thompson et al., a traveling path of the laser and extends the traveling path of the laser in the fluid supply portion intersects a direction in which the initiator and the monomer are capable of being supplied. See, e.g., Fig. 5. Also see above with respect to intended use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USSIR H12264; US Patents 6,187,133 and 9,200,369; and USP Pub. 2021/0355581 disclose substrate processing device with a substrate support portion, a fluid supply portion and a laser generation portion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights