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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/11/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims and the cancellation of claim 24. Claims 15-16, 18, 21-23 and 25-30 remain pending with claims 27-28 withdrawn from consideration due to a lack of unity requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Giusti discloses simultaneously applying to multiple regions with multiple fluid applicators and such is noted by the examiner. Here, the examiner notes the applicant’s claims fail to distinguish over the prior art of record, specifically, that presence of a second applicator of Giusti is foreclosed by the claims as broadly drafted. Here, the applicant’s do not define the “application step” to be any more than “performing application” along an application route, where the application route can encompass multiple injectors moved along an application route as claimed.
Here, Giusti explicitly discloses the imaging device to obtain an image is moved along a scanning route (see Figure 4, 0049). Guisti fails to disclose the specific scanning route as claimed; however, a scanning route for providing an image will exists. However, Ikushima, also in the art of scanning an imager across a substrate to obtain an image and discloses a scan path that includes a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass (see Figure 4 and accompanying text). Therefore, as Guisti requires imaging of an array of substrates using a imaging device moved along a scan path and Ikushima discloses a known and suitable scan path for an imaging device of a substrate including a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass, it would have been obvious as predictable to have modified Guisti to use the known imaging scan path as suggested by Ikushima to reap the benefits of providing an image of the substrate orientation. The combination of the prior art would result in a scan path that includes linearly moves over a first row or a first column of workpieces arranged on the workpiece placement member, turns around outside a last workpiece in the first row or the first column to move to an end of a second row or a second column on the workpiece placement member, and linearly moves over the second row or the second column of workpieces.
Applicant has not appreciated the level of one of ordinary skill in the art taking the disclosure of the cited references and all that such would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. Each of the references suggest scanning an imaging device to capture images, Guisti fails to disclose a scan path; however, such is explicitly evidenced by Ikushima and therefore it would have been obvious as predictable to have modified Guisti to use the known imaging scan path as suggested by Ikushima to reap the benefits of providing an image of the substrate orientation. In other words, clear predictable results would follow from using the known and suitable scan path to provide the desired image. The combination of the prior art would result in a scan path that includes linearly moves over a first row or a first column of workpieces arranged on the workpiece placement member, turns around outside a last workpiece in the first row or the first column to move to an end of a second row or a second column on the workpiece placement member, and linearly moves over the second row or the second column of workpieces. The applicant has not offered any evidence, secondary consideration, or persuasive arguments that the fact that Ikushima discloses a single substrate (versus taking images of a substrate in an array) is not persuasive nor has any evidence been presented that the scan path would not provide predictable results in obtaining images of the substrate array of Guisti.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Giusti and Ikushima are noted but not persuasive as they are directed towards the individual references and not what the combination of references suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the combination of prior art is noted, but examiner notes the both references are concerned with imaging the substrates prior to application. Ikushima discloses coating work (0002) and alignment before starting the coating process to measure the deviations and location of the workpiece. Guisti also discloses coating work and alignment before starting the coating process to measure deviations and location of the workpiece (X,Y, Z measurements) and adjusting the scanning routs based on the measurements. Examiner notes both Ikushima and Guisti discloses imaging a substrate prior to deposition, where the imaging is done for a substrate. Here, the examiner notes that in addition to a single substrate with multiple segments, Guisti discloses a plurality of substrate in an array (see e.g. Guisti at 0047 “part of a single substrate” or “substrates A, B, C, D”) and therefore Applicant’s reliance on the disclosure of Ikushima being limited to a single substrate is not persuasive as Guisti would provide an understanding that a scan path for imaging a single substrate or a substrate array would have been obvious to deposit a coating at the desired location.
Contrary to applicant’s arguments, both Ikushima and Guisti disclose the imaging prior to coating to provide location/mapping of the substrate(s) for realignment of the coating process (i.e. from initial scanning route to the application route based on the image)
Applicant argues that Ikushima does not serve the same technical purpose as the claimed initial scanning route because the reference is related to camera with a narrow field of view, here the examiner notes that both references are dealing with cameras for imaging the substrate (Guisti at 0049) and Guisti discloses a plurality of workpieces are same workpieces arranged in an array on a workpiece placement member, and in the horizontal-position information measuring step, the imaging device is moved along such a scanning route (see Figure 4, 0049). However, Ikushima, also in the art of scanning an imager across a substrate to obtain an image and discloses a scan path that includes a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass (see Figure 4 and accompanying text). Therefore, as Guisti requires imaging of an array of substrates using a imaging device moved along a scan path and Ikushima discloses a known and suitable scan path for an imaging device of a substrate including a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass, it would have been obvious as predictable to have modified Guisti to use the known imaging scan path as suggested by Ikushima to reap the benefits of providing an image of the substrate orientation. The combination of the prior art would result in a scan path that includes linearly moves over a first row or a first column of workpieces arranged on the workpiece placement member, turns around outside a last workpiece in the first row or the first column to move to an end of a second row or a second column on the workpiece placement member, and linearly moves over the second row or the second column of workpieces.
Here, the applicant has failed to appreciate the rejection of record, i.e. using the known scan path of a camera to imaging the substrate orientation prior to coating, and the Applicant has failed to provide factual evidence that this scan path is unpredictable in the process as outlined by Guisti.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim requirements are addressed hereinafter.
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) 15-16, 18, 20-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20160008835 by Giusti et al. taken with US Patent Application 20160165123 by Ikushima.
Claim 15: Giusti discloses a liquid-material application method of performing application in a predetermined application pattern on a plurality of workpieces arranged with positional misalignment (Figure 2, Figure 4 and accompanying text), the liquid-material application method comprising: a horizontal-position information measuring step of measuring horizontal-position information of each of the plurality of workpieces by an imaging device that moves along an initial scanning route (0004, 0009, 0048-0053); a height information measuring step of measuring height information of a ranged position of each of the plurality of workpieces by a ranging device (0050, 0060-0061); and an application step of performing application in the application pattern on the plurality of workpieces based on the horizontal-position information measured in the horizontal-position information measuring step and the height information measured in the height information measuring step (0051, 0052, 0057-0061, 0071-0073).
Giusti explicitly discloses “substrates A-D may lie generally parallel to the X-Y plane, and thus a single height measurement for each substrate may be sufficient” (see first line of paragraph 0051). As such, Guisti embodies and discloses a single height measurement for each individual substrate and therefore using a single height measurement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the time of the invention to achieve the desired position of each substrate in the Z direction. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Giusti fails explicitly disclose the corrected scanning route is a line connecting ranged positions and moving the height sensor along the correct scanning route; however, the reference discloses ranging device to measure the height displacement and discloses “a single height measurement for each substrate” and therefore the measurement of a single point for each substrate would encompass a line as claimed (i.e. from one position on one substrate to any position on the second substrate would be embodied by a ”line” as claimed giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, i.e. any line (e.g. straight line, curved line, etc. is embodied by the claims). At the very least it would have been obvious to have progressed from one point on one substrate to one point on a second substrate via a straight line between the two ranged positions as a line is the most efficient and/or shortest distance between two ranged points and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the teachings of Giusti to reap the benefits of movement in a straight line from one point to another point.
Additionally, Guisti discloses the measuring of the X-Y displacement using the positional sensor and the Z displacement using the ranging device sensor to measure the height and therefore taking the reference for its entire teaching and based on the level of one ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have measured the X-Y displacement of each of the substrate and thereafter measure the Z displacement using a ranging device and moving the ranging device based on the information and measurements from the position of the substrates as noted by the X-Y displacement measuring step, thus resulting in a corrected path as claimed (i.e. based on the position of the substrate move the ranging device so that the ranging device measure the substrate height). A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Here, the measurement of X,Y and Z positions of each of the substrates and controlling the dispenser based on the values obtained by the position and height measurement can be embodied by a finite number of predictable solutions, including measuring X,Y and Z concurrently or in sequence and it would have been obvious to have measured the position of the substrates and based on the position of the substrate moving the height sensor to measure the substrate height as such would have been obvious as predictable method to evaluate the location of the substrates for coating. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
Giusti discloses the plurality of workpieces are workpieces arranged on a workpiece placement member (figure 2 and figure 4 and accompanying text), wherein the plurality of workpieces are the same workpieces arranged in an array with at least two in the row direction and two in the column direction (See Figure 1-2).
Giusti discloses in the horizontal-position information measuring step, the horizontal-position information of the plurality of workpieces is successively measured while the imaging device and the plurality of workpieces are moved relative to each other continuously (i.e. without stopping) (0049).
Guisti discloses all that is taught above and discloses a plurality of workpieces are same workpieces arranged in an array on a workpiece placement member, and in the horizontal-position information measuring step, the imaging device is moved along such a scanning route (see Figure 4, 0049). Guisti fails to disclose the scanning route as claimed. However, Ikushima, also in the art of scanning an imager across a substrate to obtain an image and discloses a scan path that includes a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass (see Figure 4 and accompanying text). Therefore, as Guisti requires imaging of an array of substrates using a imaging device moved along a scan path and Ikushima discloses a known and suitable scan path for an imaging device of a substrate including a linear movement, turning around on the outside of the substrate and linear movement along a second pass, it would have been obvious as predictable to have modified Guisti to use the known imaging scan path as suggested by Ikushima to reap the benefits of providing an image of the substrate orientation. The combination of the prior art would result in a scan path that includes linearly moves over a first row or a first column of workpieces arranged on the workpiece placement member, turns around outside a last workpiece in the first row or the first column to move to an end of a second row or a second column on the workpiece placement member, and linearly moves over the second row or the second column of workpieces.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference Response to Arguments above as it relates to the combination of Guisti and Ikushima.
As for the added claim requirements, as it relates to the creating a corrected scanning route, such is addressed above.
As for the application route setting step by associating a positional misalignment in a high direction obtained from the height measuring step with the corrected scanning route to generate the application route, the examiner notes that Guisti explicitly discloses ranged position measuring step along a initial scanning path “For fiducial identification, the gantry 42 may be controlled to move the camera 112 along a pre-programmed path based on expected locations of the fiducials “ and using “Based on the images of the fiducials 110a, 110b captured by the camera 112, the controller may then determine the actual position of each substrate A, B, C, D in the XY plane”. Guisti discloses the “Based on the images of the fiducials 110a, 110b captured by the camera 112, the controller may then determine the actual position of each substrate A, B, C, D in the XY plane” and thus generate a corrected scanning route as claimed.
Guisti also discloses a height information measuring step “enable the controller to determine for each substrate A-D a proper height along the Z axis, referred to as a dispense height”
As for the application route step of setting an application route by associating the height misalignment with the corrected scanning route to generate an application route, the examiner notes such is specifically discloses by Guisti at Figure 14a and accompanying text, specifically paragraphs 0071-0075 (step 204 “ the system then determines the location and orientation (i.e., the position) of each dispense location in the XY plane defined by the system, based on the identified reference fiducials” and “At step 206, the system then collects Z height measurements for the dispense regions through height sensing.”) and application route is adjusted based on this information, via the control algorithm see Figure 14a and accompanying text.
Claim 16: Giusti discloses the initial scanning route is set such that the ranging device passes over the ranged positions of the plurality of workpieces arranged without positional misalignment (0049)
Claim 18: Giusti discloses the application in the predetermined application pattern is performed on the plurality of workpieces arranged with the positional misalignment by moving a discharge head and a worktable to which the workpiece placement member is fixed relative to each other, the discharge head including a discharge device that discharges liquid material, the imaging device, and the ranging device (figure 4 and accompanying text).
Claim 21: Ikushima discloses the imaging device turns around along a trajectory with one or more curvatures after moving to a position outside the workpiece (Figure 4).
Claim 22: Ikushima discloses a imager starting outside the substrate and stopping outside the substrate (see e.g. scan path at Figure 4) and therefore will include an acceleration section when the imager is moved/started moving and a deceleration section when the imager is stopped.
Claim 23: Giusti discloses in the height information measuring step, the height information of the plurality of workpieces is successively measured while the ranging device and the plurality of workpieces are moved relative to each other (0050).
Claim 24: Giusti discloses in the application step, application is performed according to an application route corrected based on the height information of the workpieces measured in the height information measuring step (0061).
Claim 26: Giusti discloses substrates that can reasonably be considered “gel” within the scope of the claims as drafted and defined by the specification. Here, Giusti discloses various materials that meet the requirements of gel materials at 0002, i.e. paste, flux, 0077 related to additional dispensing on to substrate with gel materials).
Claim 29: Giusti discloses using fudicials located at the same location on all of the substrates (0048-0049) and while the reference fails to disclose using the fudicials for measuring the height, as noted above, Giusti discloses measuring a single location on the substrates to determine the height and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have measured the height at the same location on each substrate, i.e. the fudicials.
Claim 30: As noted above, it would have been obvious to have progressed from one point on one substrate to one point on a second substrate via a linear line between the two ranged positions as a linear line is the most efficient and/or shortest distance between two ranged points and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the teachings of Giusti to reap the benefits of movement in a straight line from one point to another point.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giusti et al with Ikushima, as applied above, taken with US Patent Application Publication 20160351426 by Kwon.
Guisti with Ikushima discloses all that is taught above and discloses a plurality of workpieces are same workpieces arranged with different non-unform angles (see Figure 2) and discloses using a substrate pocket; however, fails to disclose a circular or oval pocket. However, Kwon, in the art of measuring the substrate surface using a imager, and discloses pockets that are circular are known to hold substrate (see e.g. 0043) and therefore using a circular pocket to hold a substrate would have been obvious as predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights