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 group I (claims 45, 48-49 and 51-61) in the reply filed on June 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 45, 48-49 and 51-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 45, the limitation of “optionally...moments in time” and “optionally the controlling...of imaging beams L3” render the claim indefinite because the claim 45 recites that the control module is configured to perform a subsequent group of imaging beam (L3) but immediately qualifies that operation as “optionally”. As written, it is unclear whether the subsequent L3 control operation is a required claim limitation or merely an optional embodiment outside the metes and bounds of the claim. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine reasonable certainty whether a system lacking the recited L3 operation falls within the scope of the claim.
For the purposes of prior art examination, the Office interprets the claim under the broadest reasonable as not requiring the optical L3 limitation. In other words, the Office interprets claim 45 as encompassing embodiments both with and without the recited L3 operation. Therefore, the prior art need not disclose the optional L3 operation to satisfy claim 45 under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 45, 48, 49 and 51-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (U.S.Pat. 9,405,203 B2) in view of Kresser (U.S. Pat. 9,706,129 B2).
As to claim 45, Chen discloses a control module comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claim such as: read imaging data for a sequence of at least (C1+C2) pixels (702-708), C1(702) and C2 (704) being integers greater than or equal to 1 (see col.9, lines 42-51); controlling multiple writing beams arranged next to each other, the imaging beams having a first group of C1 imaging beams and a second groups of C2 imaging beams L2 (see col.10, lines 30-37; col.22, lines 1-21). Thus, Chen teaches a multi-beam writing apparatus including a controller configured to receive pattern/image data and control a plurality of adjacent imaging units (for writing beams) for writing corresponding portions of a pattern on a substrate. Chen further teaches partitioning image data among multiple imaging units so that multiple portions of the image are written substantially simultaneously by different beam units, as claimed. However, Chen does not explicitly disclose controlling different subsets of the imaging beams sequentially at different moments in time for corresponding subsets of pixels as present claimed.
Kresser teaches dividing image pixels into multiple groups and controlling those groups at chronologically offset moments. Kresser further teaches that one pixel group is processed while another pixel group is subsequently processed, after which the sequence is repeated for subsequent groups, thereby providing progressive grouped processing. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chen by controlling subsets of Chen’s multiple imaging beams according to the grouped sequential processing taught by Kresser in order to improve synchronization of image data processing, reduce controller bandwidth requirements, simplify timing control, and permit progressive processing of large image datasets while maintaining high throughput.
As to claim 48, Chen teaches a system for writing a pattern on a substrate having an imager configured to image the substrate using a plurality of imaging units controlled by a controller. Chen further teaches that the controller receives data and controls the imaging units to perform imaging process.
As to claim 49, Chen discloses conventional imaging systems include: exposure station; developer; transport device; post exposure (see figures 1-2).
As to claims 51-52, and 58, Chen teaches partitioning image data among multiple imaging units. Kresser teaches dividing image pixels into separate pixel groups that are sequentially processed. In view of such teachings, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select separated pixels for each group as claimed for the purpose of distributing processed load among multiple imaging beams while reducing simultaneous controller bandwidth and balancing exposure operations.
As claims 53-54, Chen as modified by Kresser, lacks to show selecting of a clock frequency as recited in the instant claims. However, Kresser teaches receiving image data for multiple units, as discussed and Kresser teaches sequential processing of difference pixel groups at different moment in time. In view of such teachings, providing a clock signal defining the timing between sequential processing operations merely constitutes an obvious implementation detail required for coordinating the sequential operation taught by Kresser. To a skilled artisan, selection of a clock frequency f1 and corresponding timing interval 1/f1, as recited in the claims, represents routine engineering optimization.
With respect to claims 55-56, the claim recites that the pixels of each group are selected according to an interleaving pattern n; n+N; n+2N. It is the Examiner’ position that interleaving pixels among multiple processing groups represents a well-known technique for distributing workload among multiple writing elements while improving throughput. Accordingly, selecting such an interleaving pattern would have been an obvious implementation of the grouped processing taught by Kresser when applied to the multi-beam writing system of Chen.
With respect to claim 57, Chen teaches independently controlling multiple imaging units based upon corresponding portions of image data. Providing different imaging parameters for different beam groups merely represents independent control of separate imaging units and constitutes an obvious implementation for optimizing exposure quality or writing performance. Accordingly, to a skilled artisan that obtaining different imaging settings for different beam groups would have been obvious.
With respect to claims 59 and 61, Chen teaches relative movement between the imaging system and the substrate during writing. Providing movement of the mask layer relative to the imaging beams while successive beam groups image corresponding pixel groups merely represents the normal operation of a scanning imaging system. Accordingly, claim 59 would have been obvious.
As to claim 60, rotatable drums and flatbed transport mechanisms constitute well-known alternative substrate support system in laser imaging equipment as taught by Chen. Selection between a drum architecture and a flatbed architecture merely represents the substitution of one known equivalent support mechanism for another according to the desired machine configuration. Therefore, claim 60 would have been obvious.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miyagawa (US 20120325099 A1); Wang et al (U.S.Pat. 11,567,413) disclose image control modules and have been cited for technical background.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG HENRY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Toan Minh Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
HUNG HENRY NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
Hvn
8/2/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights