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 1-14, 25-26) in the reply filed on June 12, 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 1-14 and 25-26 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.
With respect to claim 1, the limitation of “optionally...moments in time” and “optionally the using of a subsequent group of imaging beams ...moments in time” render the claim indefinite because the claim 1 recites “optionally, at one or more subsequent moments in time, using a subsequent group of imaging beams (L3) for imaging substantially simultaneously a subsequent group of pixels...” followed by “repeating the reading of imaging data....and optionally the using of a subsequent group of imaging beam (L3)...”. It is unclear whether the recited use of the subsequent group of imaging beam (L3) constitutes a required step of the claimed method or merely an optional embodiment that is not intended to limit the scope of the claim. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a method that performs only the mandatory L1 and L2 imaging steps, but omits the L3 imaging step, nevertheless falls within the scope of the claim. Because the metes and bounds of the claimed cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, claims 1-14 and 25-26 are indefinite.
Applicant is required to amend the claim to clearly indicate whether the L3 imaging step forms part of the claimed method or is merely an unclaimed optional embodiment.
As to claim 9, the recitation of “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear the limitation of “an on time value....for the imaging” is part of the claim.
As to claim 13, the phrase “if present” renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the recited feature is a required limitation of the claim or merely an optional feature that may or may not exist. If the recited feature is absent, it is further unclear whether the subsequently recited limitations remain part of the claimed invention or whether those limitations are omitted entirely. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determined with reasonable certainty, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
For the purposes of prior art examination, the Office interprets the claim under the broadest reasonable. Accordingly, the optional L3 limitation is interpreted as not being a required method step, and the claim is interpreted as encompassing embodiments that perform only the expressly required L1 and L2 imaging operations. The prior art rejections below are made under this interpretation.
Also, the Examiner interprets the phrase “e.g.” and/or “if present” as indicating that the recited feature is optional and does not impose a positive structural or functional limitation on the claimed subject matter. Under this interpretation, the claim encompasses embodiments in which the recited feature is present as well as embodiments in which the recited feature is absent. This interpretation is adopted solely for purposes of evaluating patentability over the prior art and does not overcome the indefiniteness discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 26, applicants have claim directed to a computer program or computer program product that cover signals per se. It has been held that a claim drawn to such a computer program/computer program product that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Correction is required.
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 1-14 and 25-26 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 claims 1-3 and 26, Chen discloses a method and a computer program or computer program product for imaging a mask layer (104) and comprising substantially all of the limitations of the instant claim such as: providing a mask layer; providing a plurality of at least (C1+C2) imaging beams arranged next to each other, the plurality of imaging beams having a first group of C1 and imaging beam (L1) and a second group of C2 imaging beam (L2) (see col.10, lines 30-37; col.22, lines 1-21); read imaging data (see figure 11) for a sequence of at least (C1+C2) pixels (702-708), C1(702) and C2 (704) being integers greater than or equal to 1 (col.9, lines 42-51). Thus, Chen teaches a multi-beam writing apparatus and a corresponding method 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 claims 4-5, 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 6-7, 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 claims 8-9, 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.
As to claim 10, 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.
With respect to claims 11 and 13-14, 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, claims 11, 13-14 would have been obvious.
As to claim 12, 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 12 would have been obvious.
As to claim 25, Chen as modified by Kresser lacks to show the material of the mask layer in the particular manner recited. However, the Examiner finds that the particular selection of the material forming the layer merely constitutes a mater of routine engineering design choice that would have been well within the ordinary level of skill in the art. Selection of an appropriate material from among known suitable material would have amounted to nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established function. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to provide the mask layer of Chen with a photopolymerizable layer of a relief precursor based upon well-known design considerations, including compatibility with the intended imaging process, manufacturing requirements, process durability or other routine engineering consideration.
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 methods 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
8/3/26
/HUNG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights