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 .
2. This office action is responsive to the application Nº 19/002,739 filed on December 27th, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS have been considered.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
5. The examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 12/27/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shinozaki (JP 2012-204500).
9. Regarding independent claim 1: Shinozaki disclosed a manufacturing apparatus for a display device ([0002], line 1 and [0015], lines 9-11), comprising:
a stage ([0017], line 1; also see Fig. 3, reference 10) including a substrate seating area ([0032], lines 6-10; also see Figs. 3 and 4, references 42), which is configured for seating a substrate (Fig. 3, reference G), and a surrounding area, which is positioned around the substrate seating area (Fig. 1, the area outside the limits of the stage 10);
a dispenser positioned above the stage and including a nozzle for discharging ink ([0022], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 3, reference 18); and
a gap measurement unit positioned at least partially in the surrounding area of the stage ([0028], lines 5-8),
wherein the gap measurement unit includes a reference block ([0028], line 6; also see Fig. 3, reference 46) and a camera that faces the reference block ([0048], line 5 and [0029], line 1; also see Fig. 3, reference 50).
10. Regarding claim 2: Shinozaki disclosed the manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the stage includes: a stage body (Fig. 3, reference 10), which includes the substrate seating area (Fig. 3, reference 42); and an auxiliary frame, which is positioned on one side of the stage body (Fig. 3, reference 28R; also see Fig. 1, references 28L and 28R), and the gap measurement unit is disposed to overlap with the auxiliary frame (Fig. 3 shows camera 50 and block 46 overlapped with the auxiliary frame 28R).
11. Regarding claim 3: Shinozaki disclosed the manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reference block is positioned on a same plane as the substrate (see Fig. 3, substrate G and block 46 are positioned on a same plane).
12. Regarding claim 8: Shinozaki disclosed the manufacturing apparatus of claim 2, further comprising: height adjustment means coupling the auxiliary frame to be adjustable in height relative to the stage body ([0025], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 3, reference 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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 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.
14. 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 of this title, 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.
15. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2012-204500), in view of Tokuyasu et al. (JP 2008-023471).
16. Regarding claim 10: Shinozaki disclosed the manufacturing apparatus of claim 1.
Shinozaki is silent about further comprising: a base frame supporting the stage from below; a stage transfer unit moving the stage along a first direction; and a dispenser support unit coupling the dispenser to the base frame.
Tokuyasu et al. disclosed a manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising a base frame (Fig. 1, reference 1) supporting a stage ([0029], line 4; also see Fig. 1, reference 3) from below; a stage transfer unit moving the stage along a first direction ([0064], lines 1-3; also see Fig. 1, references 2a, 2b); and a dispenser support unit (Fig. 1, references 6, 5a, 5b) coupling the dispenser ([0035], line 1; also see Fig. 1, reference 7) to the base frame (Fig. 1 shows the support unit coupling the dispenser 7 to the base frame 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tokuyasu et al. with those of Shinozaki by coupling the dispenser to the base frame in order to improve the structural integrity of the apparatus.
17. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2012-204500), in view of Shinozaki (JP 2020-054973), hereinafter Shinozaki II.
18. Regarding claim 11: Shinozaki disclosed the manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reference block has a long bar shape along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Fig. 2 shows a plurality of long bar shape blocks 46 extending in the X-direction).
Shinozaki is silent about wherein a plurality of cameras including the camera are provided along the second direction.
Shinozaki II disclosed a similar invention in Fig. 1, with at least a gap measurement unit 8 disposed on the surrounding area of the stage and corresponding to respective blocks 42 (see Fig. 3); and further including a first and second dispenser arranged side by side in the Y-direction (Fig. 1, references 12A and 12B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shinozaki II with those of Shinozaki by providing a plurality of cameras in the second direction (Y-direction) in order to provide a gap measurement unit for each of the dispensers as disclosed by Shinozaki II in Fig. 1.
19. Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2012-204500), in view of Seung et al. (KR 102026891).
20. Regarding independent claim 12: Shinozaki disclosed a manufacturing method for a display device ([0002], line 1 and [0015], lines 9-11), comprising:
positioning a dispenser, including a nozzle ([0022], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 3, reference 18), above a display device substrate (Fig. 3, reference G) seated on a stage ([0017], line 1; also see Fig. 3, reference 10).
Shinozaki is silent about moving the dispenser to a gap calibration area, which is positioned along a first direction away from the stage and in which a gap measurement unit with a reference block and a camera is positioned; measuring a gap between an upper surface of the reference block and a tip of the nozzle in the gap calibration area using the camera; and removing the dispenser from the gap calibration area when the gap matches a reference set value based on results of the measuring the gap.
Seung et al. disclosed disposing a dispenser (Page 3, line 22; also see Fig. 2, reference 4100) above and substrate (Page 3, line 20; also see Fig. 2, reference S) seated on a stage (Page 3, line 20; also see Fig. 2, reference 200), moving the dispenser to a gap calibration area, which is positioned along a first direction away from the stage and in which a gap measurement unit with a reference block and a camera is positioned (Page 6, lines 34-36; also see Fig. 4 which shows the dispenser 4100 moved to the calibration area above the distance measuring unit 5000 (also see Fig. 2 for clarifications)); measuring a gap between an upper surface of the reference block and a tip of the nozzle in the gap calibration area using the camera (Page 6, line 43 – Page 7, line 6); and removing the dispenser from the gap calibration area when the gap matches a reference set value based on results of the measuring the gap (Page 8, lines 29-32; also see Fig. 2, after the distance calibration process, the dispenser 4100 is moved back above the substrate S).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seung et al. with those of Shinozaki by moving the dispenser to a calibration area before measuring the gap distance in order to prevent contamination of the calibration unit.
21. Regarding claim 13: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 12, further comprising: storing a drive value of a dispenser vertical driver, which moves the dispenser vertically relative to the substrate and the reference block, based on the results of the measuring the gap (Seung et al. Page 2, lines 3-7 and Page 7, lines 45-47 (the storage portion of the controller of the apparatus is not shown)).
22. Regarding claim 14: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 13, wherein the removing the dispenser comprises moving the dispenser from the gap calibration area to a discharge position above the substrate (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 29-32).
23. Regarding claim 15: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 14, further comprising: ejecting a liquid onto the substrate at the discharge position while raising the dispenser based on the stored drive value (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 32-35).
24. Regarding claim 16: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 15, further comprising: additionally measuring the gap during the ejecting the liquid; and additionally storing a drive value of the dispenser vertical driver based on results of the additionally measuring the gap (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 32-35).
25. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinozaki (JP 2012-204500), in view of Seung et al. (KR 102026891).
26. Regarding independent claim 17: Shinozaki disclosed a manufacturing method for a display device ([0002], line 1 and [0015], lines 9-11), comprising:
positioning a dispenser, including a nozzle ([0022], lines 1-2; also see Fig. 3, reference 18), above a display device substrate (Fig. 3, reference G) seated on a stage ([0017], line 1; also see Fig. 3, reference 10).
Shinozaki is silent about moving the dispenser to a gap calibration area, which is positioned along a first direction away from the stage and in which a gap measurement unit with a reference block and a camera is positioned; measuring a gap between an upper surface of the reference block and a tip of the nozzle in the gap calibration area using the camera; and calibrating the gap by raising or lowering the dispenser using a dispenser vertical driver based on results of the measuring the gap.
Seung et al. disclosed disposing a dispenser (Page 3, line 22; also see Fig. 2, reference 4100) above and substrate (Page 3, line 20; also see Fig. 2, reference S) seated on a stage (Page 3, line 20; also see Fig. 2, reference 200), moving the dispenser to a gap calibration area, which is positioned along a first direction away from the stage and in which a gap measurement unit with a reference block and a camera is positioned (Page 6, lines 34-36; also see Fig. 4 which shows the dispenser 4100 moved to the calibration area above the distance measuring unit 5000 (also see Fig. 2 for clarifications)); measuring a gap between an upper surface of the reference block and a tip of the nozzle in the gap calibration area using the camera (Page 6, line 43 – Page 7, line 6); and calibrating the gap by raising or lowering the dispenser using a dispenser vertical driver based on results of the measuring the gap (Imai et al. Page 2, lines 3-7 and Page 7, lines 45-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seung et al. with those of Shinozaki by moving the dispenser to a calibration area before measuring the gap distance in order to prevent contamination of the calibration unit.
27. Regarding claim 18: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 17, further comprising: storing a drive value of the dispenser vertical driver based on the results of the measuring the gap (Seung et al. Page 2, lines 3-7 and Page 7, lines 45-47 (the storage portion of the controller of the apparatus is not shown)); and moving the dispenser from the gap calibration area to a discharge position above the substrate (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 29-32).
28. Regarding claim 19: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 18, further comprising: ejecting a liquid onto the substrate at the discharge position while raising the dispenser based on the stored drive value (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 32-35).
29. Regarding claim 20: The combination of Shinozaki and Seung et al. disclosed the manufacturing method of claim 19, wherein during the ejecting the liquid, the measuring the gap and the calibrating the gap are repeated at least once (Seung et al. Page 8, lines 32-35; the measuring and adjusting are performed continuously in real time).
Allowable Subject Matter
30. Claim 4-7, 9 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.
Conclusion
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAOVI M. AMEH whose telephone number is (571)272-4578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
32. 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.
33. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RICARDO MAGALLANES can be reached at (571)272-5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
34. 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.
/YAOVI M AMEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
