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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cathode” and “vaporizer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “cathode”, “vaporizer” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The newly added drawing sheets are also objected to as they add subject matter (e.g. limiting arrangements) that are not a part of the original disclosure.
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 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.
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 1-4, 6, 8-19, 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0304025 to Hwang et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0017445 to Takehara et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,270,582 to Rivkin et al. and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0064657 to Pepler et al.
With respect to claims 1, 19, 21: Hwang et al. disclose a combination in-line, cluster apparatus capable of thin film encapsulation substantially as claimed and comprising: a first cluster (2) capable of forming a first inorganic layer on a first substrate on which an emission unit is formed, wherein the first inorganic layer is formed by a sputtering process; a second cluster (3) capable of forming a first organic layer on the first substrate with the first inorganic layer, wherein the first substrate is conveyed from the first cluster to the second cluster and the first organic layer is formed by an organic deposition process; a first connection module (8 and 9 between 2 and 3,) for connecting the first cluster and the second cluster and conveying the first substrate on which the first inorganic layer is formed from the first cluster to the second cluster; and a third cluster (4) capable of forming a second inorganic layer on the first organic layer of the first substrate, wherein the second inorganic layer is formed by using a chemical vapor deposition process (CVD) or a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process PECVD). Additionally, the first connection module uses robot (5a) to convey the first substrate from the first cluster to the second cluster. No specific configurations are mentioned for the processing structure in each of the deposition chambers (6) of the clusters. However, elsewhere in the disclosure Hwang et al. discloses it is known to use CVD and/or sputtering as deposition techniques (see, e.g., para. 9). This passage also teaches that when forming an OLED is known to deposit organic layers and inorganic layers (e.g., anode and cathode). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the claimed techniques and deposit the claimed layers in the deposition chambers of Hwang et al. Although, Hwang et al. address many of the claimed intended uses with respect to processes performed and layers formed in the claimed apparatus, please see below regarding claim recitations drawn to intended use of the claimed apparatus. Also, note that Hwang et al. teach that the connection modules may comprise two buffer chambers (e.g., two “8”s or an “8” and a “9), wherein between the first cluster and the second cluster in the disclosed example the connection module includes a chamber 8 and a chamber 9. See, e.g., para. 37.
Regarding the plurality of first sputtering chambers (or three or more sputtering chambers), the plurality of first deposition chambers and the plurality of first chemical vapor deposition chambers, this feature is considered a duplication of chambers with “configurations” of which modified Hwang et al. would be capable based on the claimed intended uses and or generically claimed structure (which is addressed where recited). The courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The increased throughput provided by the duplication is not considered a new or unexpected result of duplication of chambers in cluster tool.
Hwang et al. do however fail to disclose the first connection module is configured to cool the substrate in a non-contact manner or any of the associated structure for performing such a cooling process.
However, passive cooling in a connection module between two clusters is known in the art, as is non-contact cooling using a cooling plate wherein a substrate is supported on a movable shuttle.
Takehara et al. disclose use of a connection module (e.g., Figs. 4A-B, 12 and 16-20, 406) between two clusters (450 and 460) wherein the connection chamber comprises a shuttle (1602, 1604, 1606 and 1608 of 1600) and the purpose of the connection module is to provide for a good buffer station for flowing a substrate in a timely manner as may be needed during an in-situ fabrication sequence. Furthermore, Takehara et al. also teach that the connection chamber may be used for cooling (see, e.g., paras. 15, 73-90, 94, 111, 132-136, 174-184) and shuttle of Takehara et al. includes supporting fingers (1620) and support pads (1622) for supporting the substrate such that the shuttle is spaced apart from the cooling in a second direction substantially perpendicular to the first direction and such that the first substrate is directly between the shuttle and apparatus structures provided there above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time presently claimed invention was effectively filed to have provided the first connection module between the first cluster and the second cluster comprising a shuttle (as a functional equivalent to the robot of Hwang et al.) including supporting fingers and support pads in order to provide a good buffer station for flowing a substrate in a timely manner as may be needed during an in-situ fabrication sequence as taught by Takehara et al.
As mentioned above, Takehara et al. mentions that cooling may take place in the connection module and a few examples of cooling mechanisms for the connection chamber are given; however, the disclosure does not elaborate upon any specific embodiment.
Rivkin et al. disclose a specific embodiment of a connection module comprising a cooling plate (e.g., 150) having a substantially planar surface extending in the first direction wherein the planar surface comprises a single, continuous refrigerant passage (e.g., 154, wherein the passage is all fluidly connected) through which a refrigerant is to be circulated for cooling the substrate in a non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted by the substrate. Provision of the connection module allows for pre- and/or post-processing such as the aforementioned cooling to take place after a primary process (see, e.g., column 2, rows 11-28 column 4, rows 17-42 and column 6, rows 1-46).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the modified connection module of Hwang et al. and Takehara et al. comprising a cooling plate having a substantially planar surface extending in the first direction wherein the planar surface comprises a single, continuous refrigerant passage through which a refrigerant is to be circulated for cooling the substrate in a non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted by the substrate in order to allow for pre- and/or post-processing such as the aforementioned cooling to take place after a primary process as taught by Rivkin et al.
Modified Hwang et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above, including the type of cooling unit -- cooling plates. However, modified Hwang et al. fail to disclose: when the shuttle is in a first position between the first cluster and the second cluster, a first portion of the planar surface of each of the cooling plates directly faces a first portion of the substrate in the second direction and cools the first substrate in a non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the first substrate, and wherein when the shuttle is in a second position that is closer to the second cluster in the first direction than the first position, a second portion of each of the planar surfaces of each of the cooling plates directly faces the first portion of the first substrate in the second direction and cools the first substrate in the non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the fist substrate.
Pepler et al. disclose a plurality of first substrate cooling units (Figs. 1-4 and 7-8, 116) in a first connection module spaced apart from a first substrate (108) for cooling the first substrate in a second direction perpendicular to a moving direction/first direction (128), wherein the first substrate is positioned directly below the cooling units-2-113518742.1Appin No. 14/839,035Amdt date March 19, 2021Reply to Office action of January 21, 2021 in the second direction for cooling the first substrate in a non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the first substrate, wherein since the substrates are configured to by continuously moved through the connection module (allowing for a plurality of positions including first, second and third), when the substrate is in a first position between a previous processing area and a succeeding processing area, a first portion of a combined surface of the cooling units directly faces the first substrate in the second direction and cools the first substrate in the non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the first substrate, and wherein when the substrate is in a second position that is closer to the succeeding processing area in the first direction than when the substrate is in the first position, a second portion of the combined surface of the cooling units plate directly faces the first substrate in the second direction and cools the first substrate in the non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the first substrate. Additionally, when the shuttle is in a third position that is closer to the second cluster in the first direction than the second position, an entire width of the shuttle in the first direction may be entirely between the second cluster and a closest end of the cooling plates of the plurality of first cooling units. The configuration allows for cycling output of the temperature control (cooling) units from a steady-state temperature output as a function of the spatial position of the conveyed substrates within the chamber relative to the temperature control (cooling) units so as to decrease temperature variances in the substrates caused by movement of the substrates through the chamber (see, e.g., abstract and paras. 27-50 and 57-60). Note: Pepler et al. teach that various types of cooling units may be used in the configuration. Such that it would be obvious to use the cooling plates of Rivkin et al. in the arrangement of cooling units disclosed therein.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was made to have provided the connection modules in modified Hwang et al. configured as described above in order to allow for cycling output of the temperature control (cooling) units from a steady-state temperature output as a function of the spatial position of the conveyed substrates within the chamber relative to the temperature control (cooling) units so as to decrease temperature variances in the substrates caused by movement of the substrates through the chamber as taught by Pepler et al.
Regarding intended use, Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled claims that directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
As mentioned above no specific processing structure is detailed in the chambers 6 in Fig. 1. However, in para. 9 of the specification, it is mentioned that known prior art film forming techniques including ion-plating, sputtering, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) may be used in the apparatus. Additionally, Fig. 2 of Hwang et al. discloses deposition chamber comprising a vaporizer (20) and capable of containing a first organic material to deposit an organic layer, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a configuration in the chambers of the second cluster.
Regarding the technique of sputtering performed in the first sputtering chambers structures provided to enable the same, Takehara et al., disclose a sputtering chamber including a cathode (e.g., Fig. 15, 1564) and a mechanism for introducing a process gas (1582), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a configuration in the chambers of the first cluster.
Regarding the configuration of the plurality of first chemical vapor chambers in the third cluster, no additional structure is recited in claim 1.
With respect to each of the processes performed in the chambers, as well as the article worked upon (e.g., substrate with emission unit, first inorganic layer, first organic layer, second inorganic layer, etc.) and the processing materials used (e.g., process gas, first organic material, second organic material, etc.), Examiner still notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Finally, regarding the claimed order overall layout of the clusters, Examiner notes that Hwang et al. teach each of the types of processing performed in the three clusters and providing them in any order would merely represent a rearrangement of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art exercising ordinary creativity, common sense and logic. Examiner also notes that the claimed apparatus is not tied to any specific method, rather the prior art must be capable of providing the claimed functionality in addition to addressing the claimed structures. The courts have ruled that the mere rearrangement of parts which does not modify the operation of a device is prima facie obvious. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
With respect to claim 2 limitation “wherein when the cooling plate cools the first substrate in the non-contact manner, the shuttle is movable independent of the substrate cooling unit”, neither Takehara nor Pepler disclose that movement of the substrate and/or shuttle must be fixed with respect to any processing or processing unit such as the cooling or a cooling unit, therefore is considered to render this recitation obvious. Also see above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 3, Rivkin et al. disclose a source of the cooling water/cooler (e.g., 178 and 180) that is connected to the corresponding cooling plate and refrigerant circulation passage and cools the corresponding cooling plate. Additionally, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Increased throughput cannot be considered a new or unexpected result.
With respect to claim 4, as detailed above, the refrigerant passage is in fluid communication with the cooler for suppling and circulating the refrigerant, and wherein the refrigerant passage is sealed from the first substrate.
With respect to claim 6, in Hwang et al., each of the first second and third clusters have a plurality of at least three process chambers (6) connected thereto. The chambers may be arbitrarily selected to read upon the “ordered sequence”/intended uses recited by the claim. Furthermore, as detailed above, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled the following: a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Also see above regarding duplication of parts.
With respect to claim 8, Hwang et al. disclose a second connection module (8 and 9 between 3 and 4) for connecting the second cluster and the third cluster and conveying the first substrate drawn from the second cluster to the second cluster.
With respect to claim 9, similar to the first connection unit and as detailed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the presently claimed invention was effectively filed to have provided the second connection unit as claimed for the same reasoning presented above.
With respect to claim 10, Hwang et al., the second connection module is capable of transferring the first substrate from the second cluster to the third cluster of from the third cluster to the second cluster and therefore it can be said that the second connection module is capable of reversing the first substrate and conveying the first substrate from the second cluster to the third cluster. See above regarding intended use.
With respect to claim 11, each of the process chambers and transfer chamber of the clusters and the connection chambers are capable of being at a vacuum pressure. Thus, they can all be controlled to be the same pressure -- vacuum pressure. Again, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled the following: claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Additionally, Rivkin et al. also disclose performing a cooling process in a connection module while also equalizing internal pressures between the connection module and transfer modules that are connected thereto via open gate valves such that when they are open to each other they are at the same internal pressure for the purpose of enabling more productive and effective transition of wafers therebetween (see, e.g., column 1, rows 17-55; column 3, rows 30-60 and column 5, rows 12-44).
With respect to claim 12, which merely represents a duplication of the structure of Hwang et al. and which would obviously allow for additional throughput, the courts have ruled that he mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Increased throughput cannot be consider a new or unexpected result.
With respect to claims 13 and 17, the connection module of Hwang et al. includes a turn module (9) that can orient/re-orient the substrate according the claimed intended uses. Again, regarding intended use, the courts have ruled claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). So, for example, referring to Fig. 2 of Hwang et al., the chamber can be said to be upward or downward deposition since the source is facing upward and the substrate is facing downward.
With respect to claim 14, as detailed above, duplication of the structure of Hwang et al. and which would obviously allow for additional throughput and the courts have ruled that he mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378. A cluster arranged before the aforementioned first cluster of Hwang et al. but after the supplying unit (1) would read on the claimed loading cluster.
With respect to claims 15, 18, 24 in Rivkin et al., each of the plurality of substrate cooling units (i.e. the cooling plate) is installed spaced apart from the substrate (and therefore a shuttle in the combination) by a set gap in the second direction when the shuttle is in the first position (and in the second position). The gap may be less than 20 mm (see, e.g., column 7, rows 1-8) for cooling the first substrate in a non-contact manner by absorbing thermal radiation emitted from the first substrate. Additionally, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 16, once again, Examiner notes that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In the instant case, the identification of the first substrate is “the first substrate” and it can be processed based on this information. It can also be said that the “control unit” of Hwang et al. can perform this function (see, e.g., para. 27).
With respect to claim 23, as mentioned above no specific processing structure is detailed in the chambers 6 in Fig. 1. However, in para. 9 of the specification it is mentioned that known prior art film forming techniques include ion-plating, sputtering, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) may be used in the apparatus.
Regarding the technique of chemical vapor deposition or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition performed in the first chemical vapor chambers, Takehara et al., disclose a chemical vapor deposition or plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition chamber including a plasma generation unit (e.g., Fig. 14, 1418 and 1422) containing a discharge gas and a plasma generation source (1404) to supply a reaction material, a reaction gas, and/or a conveyance gas, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such a configuration in the chambers of the third cluster.
With respect to each of the processes performed in the chambers, as well as the article worked upon (e.g., substrate with emission unit, first inorganic layer, first organic layer, second inorganic layer, etc.) and the processing materials used (e.g., process gas, first organic material, second organic material, discharge gas, reaction material, a reaction gas, conveyance gas, etc.), Examiner still notes that the courts have ruled that a claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969); the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Hwang et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-19, 21 and 24 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0029243 to Kamata et al.
Modified Hwang et al. discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Hwang et al. fails to teach the planar surface of each of the cooling plates is coated with a black body material.
Kamata et al. teach providing a cooling plate with a black body coating for the purpose of obtaining a desired emissivity (see, e.g., paras. 14-15 and 27-31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the plurality of cooling plates associated with the modification of the cooling plates and cooling units of Rivkin et al. (type of cooling) and Pepler et al. (number and arrangement of cooling) of the modified apparatus having a black body coating in order to obtain a desired emissivity as taught by Kamata et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully (re)considered but they are unpersuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings, Examiner understands that not all subject matter need be illustrated, rather just where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter intended to be patented. In the instant case, Applicant appears to specifically be using the subject matter at issue to overcome the disclosures and teachings of prior art. Thus, Examiner finds it necessary to have an illustration of the subject matter at issue in order to evaluate the same and compare with the disclosures of the prior art. Alternatively, if Applicant is of the opinion that the subject matter at issue is not important for understanding of the subject matter Applicant seeks to patent, Examiner suggests cancelling the same in the claims in order to expedite examination.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Examiner failed to properly respond to Applicant’s arguments. Examiner disagrees and notes the following:
The language at issue “wherein the plurality of first sputtering chambers comprises three or more first sputtering chambers each containing the process gas and the cathode to perform the sputtering process to deposit the first inorganic layer” was newly presented for examination at the time the last office action was mailed. The subject matter was first rejected in the last office action. It was not previously rejected. Thus, Applicant’s arguments, even if previously included, were premature. Although, the entirety of Applicant’s response was considered when submitted, Applicant is not necessarily entitled to a rejection and a response to arguments they believe might be made in tandem with the actual rejection. Applicant cannot pre-traverse a rejection. Thus, Examiner has not failed to respond to a proper traversal. The arguments (which are not timely) are addressed below in response to Applicant’s response after Examiner’s rejection of the claims in the previous office action.
Applicant is referred to paragraph 45 in the office action mailed January 1, 2025, which addresses the arguments set forth in Applicant’s October 11, 2024 response; and paragraph 51 in the office action mailed July 1, 2025, which addresses the arguments set forth in Applicant’s March 6, 2025 response.
Examiner also refers to portions of Examiner’s previous responses that address intended use and impermissible hindsight. The fact that Applicant continues to disagree and replicate arguments does not mean that Examiner has ignored or improperly responded to Applicant’s remarks.
Applicant has argued that this has been a repeated failure. Examiner disagrees and notes that the arguments at issue (that are not related newly added/amended subject matter) have been addressed numerous times. See for example office actions mailed June 30, 2023; December 15, 2023; July 15, 2024.
In light of the above, the action is made final because Examiner has not failed to respond to Applicant’s arguments as appropriate according to normal patent examining procedures.
Following are responses to the arguments presented in Applicant’s most recent submission.
Teaching Away: Applicant argues that Hwang et al. teaches away from the claimed invention in that it appears to provide reaction chambers 6 of earh of the first to third clusters 2, 3, 4 having different reactants to provided different deposition layers. As has been previously explained by Examiner, the courts have ruled that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The processing materials and the specific method steps related thereto are not considered features of the claimed apparatus, rather they are materials and steps that may be used during an intended use of the claimed apparatus. Also see above rejections with respect to intended use. Furthermore, Applicant’s claims do not even recite that all of the chambers form the same type of layer and using the same processing materials (i.e. process gas and cathode of same materials). If Applicant would like to pursue a method in a future application, this feature should be made clear in order to preclude the teachings of Hwang et al. as they pertain to the method steps and materials used during the same.
Improper Use of Applicant’s Claims as a Blueprint: In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). This is true in the instant case. In particular, it is noted that all claimed features have been addressed in the rejection set forth above --- based on features known and set forth in the relied upon prior art. Applicant has generically argued that Examiner is picking and choosing the combination of chambers, the order of chambers, the structure of the chambers and the structures in and position of the connection module none of which are specifically disclosed in the prior art. In response Examiner notes that the combination of chambers and order of chambers appear to be features substantially drawn to intended use which is addressed above. Regarding the features of the connection module, Examiner notes that the relied upon prior art fairly teaches the cooling features as set forth in the disclosure and the claims, all of which are known in the art as detailed above with the necessary motivations for combination. Applicant mentions other features that also relate to an intended use of the apparatus for performing specific methods to optimize features of an article produced thereby. See above regarding intended use. Also, please note, Examiner has repeatedly recommended Applicant file an application drawn to the method intended to be performed in the claimed apparatus and relating the same to a product produced thereby. Applicant has not taken advantage of the suggestion to date. Applicant’s comment “that the process of the claimed embodiment cannot be derived from the process for manufacturing the OLED layer of Hwang without impermissible hindsight, as discussed above” is misplaced.
Regarding Applicant’s specific arguments with respect to the teachings of Takehara failing to disclose cooling to the degree of the claims, Examiner notes that silence and/or generic teachings are usually considered a teaching away. Rather they are considered silence and or generic teachings that may be complemented and supplemented with other prior art as proper.
As suggested in previous interviews and previous office actions, Examiner again suggests pursuing the subject matter at issue in a method application (to provide additional weight to intended use, processing materials and outcomes) and/or filing an appeal in this application drawn to an apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Patent Pub. No. 2004/0018305 disclose discloses using a chiller between deposition steps in order to reduce/control contamination.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, PARVIZ HASSANZADEH can be reached on (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights