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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11985887 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is a broader version of claim 1 of US 11985887 B2.
Claims 2-6 correspond to claims 2-6 of US 11985887 B2.
Claim 7 reads on claim 3 or claim 5 of US 11985887 B2.
Claim 8 reads on claim 6 of US 11985887 B2.
Claims 9-13, 15, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11985887 B2 in view of Mauck et al. (US 2016/0016423 A1).
Claim 1 of US 11985887 B2 teaches most limitations of claim 9 except a bridge (of the printing system) disposed across the substrate floatation table, and the printhead assembly movably mounted on the bridge.
Mauck teaches a floatation table (2200 in Fig. 1C) with a printing system (2100 in Fig. 1C of Mauck) comprising a bridge (2130) across the floatation table; a printhead assembly (2505) movably mounted on the bridge (as described in [0047] of Mauck).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the printing system with printhead assembly as according to Mauck in order to obtain high yield for manufacturing devices.
Claims 10-13 reads on claims 2-6 of US 11985887 B2 in view of Mauck.
Claim 15 reads on claim 6, or claim 10 of US 11985887 B2 in view of Mauck.
Claim 17 read on claim 13 of US 11985887 B2 in view of Mauck.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a system with “a substrate floatation table having a support surface, the substrate floatation table comprising a plurality of gas float passages and a plurality of gas conveyance passages arranged in the support surface to support and transport a substrate; and a gripper system disposed along the substrate floatation table to grip the substrate” along with other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a system with “a substrate floatation table having a support surface, the substrate floatation table comprising a plurality of gas float passages and a plurality of gas conveyance passages arranged in the support surface to support and transport a substrate;” and “a gripper system disposed along the substrate floatation table to grip the substrate” along with other limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest a system with “a substrate floatation table having a support surface, the substrate floatation table comprising a plurality of gas float passages and a plurality of gas conveyance passages arranged in the support surface to support and transport a substrate, each of the plurality of gas float passages extending in a direction perpendicular to the support surface and each of the plurality of gas conveyance passages extending in a direction that is not perpendicular to the support surface” and “a gripper system disposed along the substrate floatation table to grip the substrate” along with other limitations of the claim.
The closest prior art are Ko et al. (US 2015/0259786 A1), Mauck et al. (US 2016/0016423 A1), Mauck et al. (US 2013/0206058 A1) (hereinafter referred to as Mauck2013), Iida (US 2007/0160454 A1), and Lowrance et al. (US 2015/0360462 A1).
Ko, Mauck and Mauck2013 disclose similar systems of OLED printing system. These systems all use a floatation table (for example, see 2250 in Fig. 19C of Ko) which includes a plurality of first passages that provides a gas bearing to float the substrate above the table; an y-axis motion system with a gripper that conveys the substrate in the y-axis (along the length of the table). The gripper system functions to stabilize of the substrate and to move the substrate along the y-direction.
Iida teaches a similar floatation table (see Fig. 13 of Iida) with a plurality of first passages that provides a gas bearing to float the substrate above the table. Iida uses a plurality of second nozzles whose nozzle heads are oriented an oblique angle so that the gas stream from these second nozzles push the substrate along the table’s length. However, it would not be obvious how to combine the teachings of Ko, Mauck, Mauck2013 and Iida to teach all the limitations of the claim.
Lowrance teaches a system comprising a y-axis motion system having a gripper assembly (2610 in Fig. 3 and 4A of Lowrance) disposed on a track (2351 in Fig. 1C of Lowrance) to provide dynamic orientation of the rotation of the substrate about the theta-z axis during y-axis travel (see Abstract of Lowrance). The y-axis motion of the gripper can be provided by a linear air bearing (see [0073] of Lowrance) on its own track (see Fig. 3 of Lowrance) separated from the floatation table. So it would not be obvious how the gripper system of Lowrance can be incorporated into Ko, Mauck, or Mauck2013 or Iida to teach all limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0406. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-9am, 10am-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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/Tuan A Hoang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights