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
The previous abandonment has been withdrawn because Applicant has stated on the record via petition that the entire delay in filing the required reply was unintentional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0238995 to Ohba et al.
Regarding claim 1: Ohba et al. disclose a film deposition apparatus comprising:
a chamber (Fig.1, 5) capable of having a film deposition gas introduced thereinto and exhausted therefrom (see, e.g. 19, which CVD may be performed), wherein the film deposition with the film deposition gas is performed on an object to be treated;
a film conveying part (e.g., 2, 3, 5 and Figs. 5a-b, 2d, 19-20) disposed in the chamber and conveying an a long film in a roll-to-roll manner, the long film being the object to be treated;
wherein, the film conveying part includes: at least one rotatable roller (e.g., 12c and 12d) wherein the at least one rotatable roller has a first longitudinal axis (e.g., rotational axis) and a diameter of the at least one rotatable roller being the same along the first longitudinal axis, the at least one rotatable roller having a peripheral surface along the first longitudinal axis, wherein the peripheral surface has a first part (see annotated figure below) disposed for coming into contact with the long film when the at least one rotatable roller is in a first rotational position (illustrated in Fig. 5A.) and the peripheral surface of the at least one rotatable roller has a second part (see annotated figure below) disposed for being out of contact with the long film when the at last one rotatable roller is in the first rotational position; the first part being disposed for being out of contact with the long film when the at least one rotatable roller is in a second rotational position (e.g., not illustrated, about 180 degree rotation of roller from first position), and the second part is disposed for being in contact with the long film when the roller is in the second rotational position; and
a nozzle pipe (19 and 20) disposed for spraying for spraying an inert gas onto a region of the peripheral surface along the first longitudinal axis of the at least one rotatable roller, wherein the region is defined as a sprayed region and the sprayed region is on the second part when the at least one rotatable roller is in the first rotational position and on the first part in the second rotational position (the sprayed region is interpreted as all regions exposed to the spray as illustrated in Fig. 5a), whereby the first part of the peripheral disposed for coming into contact with the long film will be capable of being out of contact with the film deposition gas while the second part of the peripheral surface will be capable of being in contact with the long film when the at least one rotatable roller is in the first rotational position, and whereby the second part of peripheral surface disposed for coming into contact with the long film will be capable of being out of contact with film deposition gas while the first part of the peripheral surface is capable of being in contact with the film deposition gas when the at least one rotatable roller is in the second rotational position as the at least one rotatable roller rotates.
As detailed above, Ohba is capable of Applicant’s intended (i.e. all structural features of the apparatus are addressed). Nevertheless, Applicant is reminded 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
366
472
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12, which is similar to claim 1, but further seeks to further clarify the features of the at least one rotatable roller and the associated nozzle, which are addressed in the disclosure of Ohba et al. With respect to the additional features of the nozzle pipe extending at least substantially the length of the at least one rotatable roller and disposed substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis of the at least one rotatable roller, these features are best seen in Fig. 5a of Ohba et al., wherein the overall length of the at least rotatable roller (which is interpreted as being inclusive of the space between the at least one rotatable roller – there are two) is substantially similar to the length of the nozzle and is also substantially parallel thereto. The relative positioning of the peripheral surfaces, parts, etc. for various conditions are addressed above.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohba et al. as applied to claims 1 and 12 in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,649,860 to Furukawa et al.
Ohba et al. disclose the apparatus substantially as claimed and as described above. Additionally, Ohba et al. disclose the film conveying part further includes a bearing part (11) rotatably supporting a shaft (8) of the at least one rotatable roller.
However, although temperature control of the film conveying part is a concern of Ohba et al., a heater for raising a temperature of the shaft of the roller so that film deposition gas is not adhered thereto is not explicitly disclosed.
Furukawa et al. discloses providing heat/temperature control to parts of a film conveying part and other parts of a film deposition apparatus for the purpose of preventing vapor deposition thereon (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided a heater in order to raise a temperature of the shaft of the at least one rotatable roller such that vapor deposition gas is not adhered thereto as taught by Furukawa et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because rejections have been modified and added to address the amended claim language and new claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9-11 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the at least one rotatable roller includes to rotatable rollers each rotatable roller of the two rotatable rollers having a first longitudinal axis, the nozzle pipe is disposed in a loop shape that has second longitudinal axes, wherein the second longitudinal axes are parallel with the respective first longitudinal axis of the two rotatable rollers, and jetting ports are arranged along each second longitudinal axis of the second longitudinal axes of the nozzle pipe. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 3-4 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the film conveying part of claim 1 or 12 further including a rotatable tension detection roller, the long film coming into contact with part of a peripheral surface of the tension detection roller; a tension sensor detecting tension based on external surface action on the tension detection roller; and a case including a slit, the slit having the part of the peripheral surface of the tension detection roller exposed, and surrounding both the tension detection roller, except the part of the peripheral surface, and the tension sensor; wherein, an inert gas is capable of being introduced into the case at a pressure higher than a pressure in the chamber. Further, no other prior art was located that fairly suggested the claimed invention in whole or in part, along with the requisite motivation for combination, to anticipate or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 2,580,976; USP 4,723,507; USP Pub. 2008/0011225; 2011/0177645 disclose film deposition apparatus with film conveying parts including rollers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 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.
/KARLA A MOORE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716