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 .
Response to Arguments
The rejections under 112(b) are withdrawn in response to the amendments filed 3/31/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not anticipate all the amended limitations of claim 1 including at least two heat sources, at least two actinic radiation sources, and the alternating configuration of the heat sources and actinic radiation sources. While Examiner agrees that the previous references did not describe all of these limitations, after further search and consideration, an additional reference, Becraft, is cited which meets these limitations.
Claim Interpretation
Claims such as claim 1 contain or describe the details of the material or article being worked upon. As per MPEP §2115, the material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit the apparatus. This includes limitations regarding the stack including the superstrate, substrate, and polymerizable composition. These limitations and other similar limitations are not being interpreted as patently distinct from the prior art which discloses an otherwise similar apparatus.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2019/0011850) modified by Becraft (US 5,911,910.)
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi meets the claimed, A system, comprising: at heat source adapted to emit radiation characterized by a first peak wavelength corresponding to a highest intensity of the radiation emitted (Takahashi [0033] describes an infrared heating device, the infrared heating source is capable of emitting the peak wavelength of its own radiation) and heat a stack including a superstrate, a substrate, and a polymerizable composition between the superstrate and the substrate; (Takahashi [0033] describes an infrared heating device 13 which is capable of heating a substrate) actinic radiation source adapted to emit radiation characterized by a second peak wavelength corresponding to a highest intensity of the radiation emitted (Takahashi [0033] describes an ultraviolet irradiating device 12, the UV irradiating device is capable of emitting a peak wavelength of its own radiation) and at least photocure the polymerizable composition to form a photocured planarization layer, (Takahashi [0033] describes an ultraviolet irradiating device 12 capable of irradiating a substrate with ultraviolet radiation.)
Takahashi does not describe at least two of each of the heat and actinic sources and also does not describe, a particular heat source of the at least two heat sources is disposed between two actinic radiation sources of the at least two actinic radiation sources, and a particular actinic radiation source of the at least two actinic radiation sources is disposed between two heat sources of the at least two heat sources, and the first peak wavelength is different from the second peak wavelength.
Becraft also discloses an apparatus that contains both UV and infrared sources and is also directed to irradiating a substrate. Becraft meets the claimed, at least two heat sources, at least two actinic radiation sources, (Becraft Figure 3 and col. 8 lines 56-67describe multiple UV bulbs 20 and multiple infrared heater sources as heating means 34) a particular heat source of the at least two heat sources is disposed between two actinic radiation sources of the at least two actinic radiation sources, and a particular actinic radiation source of the at least two actinic radiation sources is disposed between two heat sources of the at least two heat sources, and the first peak wavelength is different from the second peak wavelength (Becraft Figure 3 and col. 10 lines 4-19 describe interspersing the IR bulbs with the UV bulbs, Figure 3 shows at least one IR bulb 34 between two UV bulbs 20 and at least one UV bulb 20 between two IR bulbs 34.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the IR and UV sources of Takahashi with multiple UV bulbs interspersed with multiple IR bulbs as described by Becraft in order to provide uniform heating throughout the UV exposure, see Becraft col. 19 lines 15-19.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, wherein the first peak wavelength is greater than the second peak wavelength (Takahashi [0033] describes infrared heating. Takahashi [0050] describes the infrared used is 1000-15000 nm while [0039] describes the UV light is 200-400 nm, making infrared wavelength greater.)
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least two heat sources are adapted to emit the radiation at the first peak wavelength in a range from 400 nm to 2500 nm (Takahashi [0050] describes the infrared light is 1000-15000 nm.) The range disclosed in Takahashi overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 3, wherein the first peak wavelength is in a range from 400 nm to 1100 nm (Takahashi [0050] describes the infrared light is 1000-15000 nm.) The range disclosed in Takahashi overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 3, wherein the first peak wavelength is in a range from 960 nm to 2500 nm (Takahashi [0050] describes the infrared light is 1000-15000 nm.) The range disclosed in Takahashi overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 3, wherein the at least two actinic radiation sources are adapted to emit actinic radiation at the peak second wavelength of at least 10 nm and less than 400 nm (Takahashi [0039] describes the UV light is 200-400 nm.)
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi does not explicitly describe multiple infrared irradiating devices and does not explicitly meet the claimed, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least two heat sources comprise a plurality of point heat sources, however, Takahashi does describe one infrared heating source and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B). Additionally, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to duplicate the number of infrared sources in order to provide heating at more than one location to pre-heat the belt 14 prior to the heating step, see [0048] or [0056].
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, wherein the at least two heat sources comprise at least one resistive heating member (Takahashi [0033] describes infrared heating, infrared heating is a type of resistance heating.)
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising: a bake station adapted to bake the substrate and the photocured planarization layer; (Takahashi [0056] describe heating a feeding belt which keeps the substrate warm, this is also capable of baking a photocured layer) and a controller adapted to receive bake station information and transmit a signal to the at least one two heat sources based on the bake station information (Takahashi [0055]-[0057] and [0068] describe a CPU 50 which is connected to a temperature sensor 54. The temperature sensor 54 senses the temperature of the belt 14 and then the CPU controls the heating of the belt based on the temperature.)
Regarding claim 22, Takahashi does not disclose one singular head holding both the UV and IR sources and does not meet the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising a radiation head assembly including the array of the at least two heat sources and the at least two actinic radiation sources.
Becraft meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising a radiation head assembly including the array of the at least two heat sources and the at least two actinic radiation sources (Becraft col. 8 lines 47-61 describe a chamber 9 which contains all the UV and IR bulbs.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the UV and IR sources of Takahashi with the single chamber head of Becraft in order to control the interior atmosphere, see Becraft col. 8 line 62 – col. 9 line 4.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi modified by Becraft as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nangoy (US 9,034,771.)
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi described a moving belt 14 for conveying the substrate but not a stage or any thermally insulating mechanisms and does not meet the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising: a stage adapted to move the substrate and a first thermal isolation member disposed between the stage and the at least two heat sources.
Nangoy also describes an irradiating apparatus for irradiating a substrate and meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising: a stage adapted to move the substrate (Nangoy col. 9 lines 13-15 describe the cathode assembly 400 has lift pins to move a carrier 430 which carries the substrate 436) and a first thermal isolation member disposed between the stage and the at least two heat sources (Nangoy col. 7 lines 65-67 describe insulator 414, see Figure 4 showing the insulator 414 is between the cathode base 402 (stage) and the substrate 436, the lasers are above the cathode assembly, see the description in Figure 12 flowchart.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the belt of Takahashi for the stage having the insulator as described in Nangoy in order to isolate components from heat produced by other components, see Nangoy col. 7 lines 44-46 and col. 7 lines 62-67.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi does not describe cooling means. Nangoy further meets the claimed, The system of claim 10, further comprising: a cooling means adapted to reduce an amount of heat from the at least two heat sources that reaches the stage, wherein the cooling means is disposed between the stage and the first thermal isolation member (Nangoy col. 8 lines 31-37 describe heat transfer fluid loop 416 and channels 418, see the channels 418 are below the insulator 414.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the belt and setup of Takahashi with the cooling means between the stage and first thermal isolation member as described in Nangoy in order to provide a cooling system for a heat transfer liquid that can provide adequate cooling and maintain thermal isolation between heat producing components and other components, see Nangoy col. 8 lines 31-37.
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi does not describe an additional thermal isolation member. Nangoy further meets the claimed, The system of claim 11, further comprising: a second thermal isolation member, wherein the cooling means is disposed between the first thermal isolation member and the second thermal isolation member. (Nangoy col. 7 lines 51-53 describe insulator 408 which is beneath the channels 418 but above the stage, cathode base 402.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Takahashi with the second thermal isolation member between the cooling means and the first isolation member in order to separate components, see Nangoy col. 7 lines 51-53.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi does not describe a stage or chuck and does not meet the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising: a stage adapted to move the substrate; and a substrate chuck adapted to support the substrate and disposed between the stage and the at least two heat sources.
Nangoy meets the claimed, The system of claim 1, further comprising: a stage adapted to move the substrate; (Nangoy col. 9 lines 13-15 describe the cathode assembly 400 has lift pins to move a carrier 430 which carries the substrate 436) and a substrate chuck adapted to support the substrate and disposed between the stage and the at least two heat sources (Nangoy col. 7 lines 52-60 describe the chuck 410 which contains some cooling channels, the lasers are located above the substrate, see the description in Figure 12.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Takahashi with the stage of Nangoy in order to lift the substrate in and out of the apparatus, see col. 9 lines 15-22 and a chuck to provide cooling channels, see Nangoy col. 7 lines 57-59.
Regarding claim 14, Nangoy further meets the claimed, The system of claim 13, wherein the substrate chuck comprises: a cooling means adapted to reduce an amount of heat from the at least two heat sources that reaches the stage (Nangoy col. 7 lines 52-60 describe the chuck 410 which contains some cooling channels.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to combine the belt and setup of Takahashi with the cooling means as described in Nangoy in order to provide a cooling system for a heat transfer liquid that can provide adequate cooling and maintain thermal isolation between heat producing components and other components, see Nangoy col. 8 lines 31-37.
Regarding claim 15, Nangoy further meets the claimed, The system of claim 14, wherein the substrate chuck further comprises: a thermal isolation member to reduce the amount of heat from the at least two heat sources that reaches the stage (Nangoy col. 7 lines 65-67 describe insulator 414, see Figure 4.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to substitute the belt of Takahashi for the stage having the insulator as described in Nangoy in order to isolate components from heat produced by other components, see Nangoy col. 7 lines 44-46 and col. 7 lines 62-67.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA BARTLETT whose telephone number is (571)272-4953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/V.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights