Detailed Correspondence
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
Applicants’ submission, filed on 05/07/2026, addressing claims 1-9, 11-12, 14, 19-20, 22-24, 26, and 30 rejection from the non-final office action (02/10/2026), by amending claims 1, 5, 7-8, 14, 19, and 22, cancelling claims 3-4, 12, and 30, and adding new claims 31-32 is entered and will be addressed below.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 remains withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
The examiner notices some of the claims, such as claims 7-8, are not available in the provisional Applications 62/016709 and/or 62/061899.
Claim Interpretations
The newly added limitation “the delivery aperture being shorter than the first and second confinement gas apertures and the first and second exhaust apertures“, this comparison of length/shortness can be from either the bottom view or the side view of the nozzle block.
Applicants’ disclosure “The nozzle assembly moves relative to the substrate in a direction parallel to the long axis of the delivery aperture” ([0137]), therefore, the travel direction of the substrate is perpendicular to the page of various Figures, not the usual presentation of moving substrate left to right (or right to left).
The previously amended limitation “wherein the OVJP nozzle block further comprises confinement distribution channels that provide a path for the flow of the confinement gas from a process chamber ambient to the confinement gas channels of each OVJP nozzle assembly” of claim 23, there is no description of the difference between the confinement distribution channels and confinement gas channels. The examiner consider this portion of claim 23 includes confinement distribution channels being upstream of confinement gas channels.
The previously added limitation “so that an area between each line of deposition on the substrate remains free of deposit“ of claims 1 and 19, the “line” is considered a limited length and can be in series or in parallel to the other line. Furthermore, as the claim does not require more than one line, particularly “a delivery gas source in fluid communication with the source of material to be deposited with at least one nozzle of the plurality of nozzles” which includes one single nozzle, therefore, the claim includes one deposition line.
Furthermore, line of deposition is not defined in the claim, it may correspond to one or more nozzles that is in fluid communication with the source of material.
The “in fluid communication with” in various claims, this fluid communication can be through the nozzle block or outside the nozzle block, as long as the fluids from various nozzle, channel, source can meet somewhere.
The following are considered an intended use of the apparatus –
The “a confinement gas from the confinement gas source is provided at a temperature lower than a delivery gas temperature” of claim 2,
It has been held that claim language that simply specifies an intended use or field of use for the invention generally will not limit the scope of a claim (Walter, 618 F.2d at 769, 205 USPQ at 409; MPEP 2106). Additionally, in apparatus claims, intended use 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 (In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); MPEP2111.02). When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The “wherein the OVJP nozzle block further comprises confinement distribution channels that provide a path for the flow of the confinement gas from a process chamber ambient to the confinement channels of each OVJP nozzle assembly“ of claim 23 (a feature of Fig. 17) does not have support with the amended “a nozzle block comprising a plurality of OVJP nozzles, with each OVJP nozzle comprising; a first confinement gas aperture; a second confinement gas aperture“ of claim 19 (a feature of claim 11). There is no disclosure that these two confinement channels are used together.
Dependent claim 24 is also rejected under USC 112(a) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 23.
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 19-20, 22-24, and 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.
Claim 19 recites “confinement channels … arranged adjacent to the exhaust channels”, there is no antecedent bases of exhaust channels.
Claim 19 will be examined inclusive ““confinement channels … arranged adjacent to exhaust channels”.
Dependent claims 20, 22-24, and 26 are also rejected under USC 112(b) at least due to dependency to rejected claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 19, 22, 26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forrest et al. (US 20080152806, previously cited, hereafter ‘806), in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20090128787, from IDS, hereafter ‘787).
‘806 teaches some limitations of:
Claim 1: Organic Vapor Jet Deposition Using An Exhaust (title, the claimed “An organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) device comprising”, note using organic vapor precursor is an intended use of the apparatus):
To reduce or prevent such spreading, an exhaust may be placed adjacent to the deposition nozzles. FIGS. 3A-3B shows one such configuration. An exhaust 300 is disposed adjacent to a first nozzle 310 and a second nozzle 320. As explained below, the exhaust 300 may be in fluid communication with a vacuum source, such as an evacuation source for a vacuum chamber or an independent vacuum source ([0053]), The nozzles 510 and vacuum sources 520 may be arranged in any pattern, though an array may be preferred … FIG. 5C shows a linear, or "one-dimensional" nozzle array … Configurations other than those illustrated may be used ([0058], 4th and last three sentences, the claimed “a nozzle block comprising a plurality of OVJP nozzles, each comprising”, the various vacuum sources 520 reads into the clamed “a first exhaust aperture” and “a second exhaust aperture“, the nozzle 510 reads into the claimed “a delivery aperture disposed between the first and second exhaust apertures“);
As shown in FIG. 5F, an exhaust may have any desirable cross-section, so that a single exhaust may be adjacent to multiple nozzles ([0058], 2nd last sentence, by replacing each unit in the pattern of Fig. 5C with the pattern of Fig. 5F, it would have the claimed “the delivery aperture being shorter than the first and second exhaust apertures“),
To perform OVJD, a non-reactive carrier gas transporting an organic vapor is ejected from the nozzles 310, 320 (corresponds to the nozzle 510 of Fig. 5C, the claimed “a source of organic material to be deposited on a substrate; a delivery gas source in fluid communication with the source of organic material to be deposited and in fluid communication with a delivery channel through the nozzle block that ends at the delivery aperture”, same as Applicants’ carrier gas referred to as delivery gas [0063]).
In Fig. 5C of ‘806, each delivery nozzle 510 is surrounded by two exhaust vacuum source nozzle 520.
‘806 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 1: a first confinement gas aperture;
a second confinement gas aperture;
(a first exhaust aperture) disposed between the first and second confinement gas apertures;
(a second exhaust aperture) disposed between the first and second confinement gas apertures;
(the delivery aperture being) shorter than the first and second confinement gas apertures and (the first and second exhaust apertures);
a confinement gas source in fluid communication with confinement gas channels through the nozzle block that end at the first and second confinement gas apertures,
wherein the first and second confinement gas apertures, and (the first and second exhaust apertures) are arranged to confine the deposition of the organic material on one or more predetermined portions of the substrate so that an area between each line of deposition on the substrate remains free of deposit.
‘787 is analogous art as in the field of SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS (title), FIG. 9 shows a schematic cross section of a solvent vapor discharge nozzle in a substrate processing apparatus ([0039]), solvent vapor supply source 70 ([0082]) discharged out of the discharge opening 61 ([0081]), including organic solvent vapor ([0018]). ‘787 teaches that a plurality of, such as two, openings are provided in each of the leakage preventing portions 62 of the nozzle 53B along a direction in which the nozzle 53B is moved. Specifically, by switching the valves V2 and V3, the outer opening 63A of each leakage preventing portion can be connected through the intake/supply piping 63b to the N2 gas supply source 80 of the solvent vapor blocking gas, and the inner opening 63B can be connected to the exhaust pump (not shown). In this case, preferably the outer openings 63A are provided on the lowermost surfaces of the leakage preventing portions 62. In this way, the N2 gas can be discharged (ejected) via the outer openings 63A vertically with respect to the wafer W, forming a blocking air curtain with which the leakage of the solvent vapor, as it is discharged out of the discharge opening 61, to the outside of the nozzle 53B can be reliably prevented (Fig. 9, [0096]). In short, each of the discharge opening 61 is surrounded by two exhaust openings 63B and further surrounded by two blocking openings 63A. The blocking openings 63A corresponds to the claimed “a first confinement gas aperture; a second confinement gas aperture“ and the exhaust openings 63B corresponds to the vacuum sources 520 of ‘806, and the N2 gas (right hand side of Fig. 9) is the claimed “a confinement gas source”. ‘787 also teaches that The opening 63 is formed in the shape of a slit slightly longer than the discharge opening 61 ([0075], last sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the two sources 520 that surround each delivery nozzle 510 in Fig. 5C/5F of ‘806 surrounding by two exhaust openings and further surrounding by two blocking openings connected to N2 source, both being longer than the nozzle 510 of ‘806, as taught by ‘787, for the purpose of preventing leakage of the vapor, as taught by ‘787 ([0096]).
‘806 also teaches some limitations of:
Claim 19: Organic Vapor Jet Deposition Using An Exhaust (title, the claimed “A organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) nozzle assembly comprising”, note using organic vapor precursor is an intended use of the apparatus):
To reduce or prevent such spreading, an exhaust may be placed adjacent to the deposition nozzles. FIGS. 3A-3B shows one such configuration. An exhaust 300 is disposed adjacent to a first nozzle 310 and a second nozzle 320. As explained below, the exhaust 300 may be in fluid communication with a vacuum source, such as an evacuation source for a vacuum chamber or an independent vacuum source ([0053]), The nozzles 510 and vacuum sources 520 may be arranged in any pattern, though an array may be preferred … FIG. 5C shows a linear, or "one-dimensional" nozzle array … Configurations other than those illustrated may be used ([0058], 4th and last three sentences, the claimed “a nozzle block comprising a plurality of OVJP nozzles, with each OVJP nozzle comprising”, the various vacuum sources 520 reads into the clamed “a first exhaust aperture” and “a second exhaust aperture“, the nozzle 510 reads into the claimed “a delivery aperture disposed between the first and second exhaust apertures“);
As shown in FIG. 5F, an exhaust may have any desirable cross-section, so that a single exhaust may be adjacent to multiple nozzles ([0058], 2nd last sentence, by replacing each unit in the pattern of Fig. 5C with the pattern of Fig. 5F, it would have the claimed “the delivery aperture being shorter than the first and second exhaust apertures“),
To perform OVJD, a non-reactive carrier gas transporting an organic vapor is ejected from the nozzles 310, 320 (corresponds to the nozzle 510 of Fig. 5C, the claimed “which include: a delivery channel to provide a delivery gas including an organic material and that ends at the delivery aperture”, same as Applicants’ carrier gas referred to as delivery gas [0063]).
‘806 does not teach the other limitations of:
Claim 19: a first confinement gas aperture;
a second confinement gas aperture;
(a first exhaust aperture) disposed between the first and second confinement gas apertures;
(a second exhaust aperture) disposed between the first and second confinement gas apertures;
(the delivery aperture being) shorter than the first and second confinement gas apertures and (the first and second exhaust apertures);
at least three separate types of flow channels which include:
(a delivery channel to provide a delivery gas including an organic material and that ends at the delivery aperture); and
confinement channels that end at the first and second confinement gas apertures to supply a confinement gas flow, and arranged adjacent to the exhaust channels that end at the first and second confinement gas apertures,
wherein the first and second confinement gas apertures, and (the first and second exhaust apertures) are arranged to confine the deposition of the organic material on one or more predetermined portions of the substrate so that an area between each line of deposition on the substrate remains free of deposit.
‘787 is analogous art as discussed above.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the two sources 520 that surround each delivery nozzle 510 in Fig. 5C/5F of ‘806 surrounding by two exhaust openings and further surrounding by two blocking openings connected to N2 source, both being longer than the nozzle 510 of ‘806, as taught by ‘787, for the purpose of preventing leakage of the vapor, as taught by ‘787 ([0096]).
‘787 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 2: by feeding room temperature N2 gas to the outer openings 63A, the heater 68 is capable of heating the organic solvent above room temperature, includes the claimed “wherein a confinement gas from the confinement gas source is provided at a temperature lower than a delivery gas temperature”.
The combination of ‘806 and ‘787 further teaches the limitations of:
Claims 22 and 31: Fig. 5C of ‘806 shows a linear array, by the modification of ‘787 including blocking gas openings, reads into the claimed “wherein the OVJP nozzle block comprises the plurality of OVJP nozzles arranged in a linear or two dimensional (2D) array, and the delivery aperture, the first and second exhaust apertures, and the first and second confinement gas apertures are disposed on a bottom surface of the OVJP nozzle block” of claim 22 and “wherein the first and second exhaust apertures, the first and second confinement gas apertures, and the delivery aperture are disposed in a linear arrangement in a plane that is parallel to the substrate” of claim 31.
Claim 26: Fig. 5C of ‘806 shows repeating unit of nozzle arrangement, reads into the claimed “wherein a deposition pattern from each OVJP nozzle of the nozzle assembly is equivalent to one another”.
Claim 31: Fig. 9 of ‘787 shows the clamed “wherein the delivery aperture is disposed between the first exhaust aperture and the second exhaust aperture,
wherein the first confinement gas aperture is disposed adjacent to the first exhaust aperture and disposed farther from the delivery aperture, and
wherein the second confinement gas aperture is disposed adjacent to the second exhaust aperture and disposed farther from the delivery aperture”.
Alternatively, claims 1-2, 19, 22, 26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, in view of ‘787, and Thompson et al. (US 20130243971, hereafter ‘971).
In case Applicants argue that the replacing the two sources 520 that surrounding each delivery nozzle 510 in Fig. 5C of ‘806 surrounding by two exhaust openings and further surrounding by two blocking openings ‘806 is not obvious.
‘971 is analogous art in the field of Apparatus And Process For Atomic Layer Deposition With Horizontal Laser (title). ‘971 teaches that The gas distribution plate 30 comprises a plurality of gas ports that transmit one or more gas streams to the substrate 60 and a plurality of vacuum ports disposed between each gas port that transmit the gas streams out of the processing chamber 20. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the gas distribution plate 30 comprises a first precursor injector 120, a second precursor injector 130 and a purge gas injector 140 … The purge gas injector 140 is configured to inject a continuous (or pulse) stream of a non-reactive or purge gas into the processing chamber 20 through a plurality of gas ports 145 ([0037], the purge gas correspond to the blocking N2 gas of ‘787), The system 100 further includes a pumping system 150 connected to the processing chamber 20. The pumping system 150 is generally configured to evacuate the gas streams out of the processing chamber 20 through one or more vacuum ports 155. The vacuum ports 155 are disposed between each gas port so as to evacuate the gas streams out of the processing chamber 20 after the gas streams react with the substrate surface and to further limit cross-contamination between the precursors ([0039]). Note each of the multiple modules of material source 125, 135 are separated by vacuum ports 155 and the purge gas port 145, such that “an area between each line of deposition on the substrate remains free of deposit“.
In short, ‘971 teaches repeating pattern of purge, exhaust, delivery, exhaust, purge channels.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged the channel pattern of the combination of ‘806 and ‘787 according to the pattern of Fig. 1 of ‘971, for the purpose of further limit cross-contamination between the precursors, as taught by ‘971 ([0039]) and/or different deposition locations.
Claims 5-7, 11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971), as being applied to claims 1 and 19 rejection above, further in view of "High Resolution Organic Vapor Jet Printing of Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Diode Arrays." PhD Thesis. Department of Physics. University of Michigan. 12 June 2013, from IDS (document supplied into the file folder by the examiner), hereafter McGraw’013.
‘787 further teaches some limitations of:
Claim 11: The smoothing apparatus 50 has a casing 51 in which there are disposed a substrate retaining base 52, a solvent vapor discharge nozzle 53, and a moving mechanism 54 (Fig 4, [0071], includes the claimed “further comprising a substrate holder is disposed below the at least one OVJP nozzle of the plurality of OVJP nozzles, wherein the substrate holder is configured to hold the substrate“).
The combination of ‘806 and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 5: wherein the plurality of OVJP nozzles are disposed in a staggered arrangement within the nozzle block.
Claim 11: and wherein the substrate holder is disposed a distance from the at least one OVJP nozzle of the plurality of OVJP nozzles sufficient to position the substrate 10-1000 μm from the at least one nozzle of the plurality of OVJP nozzles.
Claim 14: wherein the width of each delivery aperture of the linear array is about 30 microns.
Claim 20: wherein the OVJP nozzles are arranged to form a two dimensional array.
Note Fig. 5D-5F already suggested two dimensional array.
McGraw’013 is analogous art in the field of High Resolution Organic Vapor Jet Printing of Phosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Diode Arrays (title). McGraw’013 teaches that an array of 120 micronozzles for multicolor printing (Page 196, Fig. 12.2) and Fig. 12.2 shows micronozzles is a two dimensional array and in a staggered arrangement, Fig. 5.1 on page 68 shows nozzle to substrate distance of 10 μm and the width of nozzle is 20 μm,
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the nozzle 53 of Fig. 9 of ‘787 to an array of 120 micronozzle in a two dimensional array in staggered arrangement of Fig. 5.1 or Fig. 12.2 of McGraw’013 while keeping the confinement/purge gas between each source material nozzle, for the purpose of multicolor printing, as taught by McGraw’013 (Page 196, Fig. 12.2) and for the purpose of further limit cross-contamination between the precursors, as taught by ‘971 ([0039]).
As for the about 30 microns of claim 14, 20 microns is considered about based on Applicants’ original claim or it is merely optimization or scale up. Note the width of the delivery aperture is clearly an effect parameter for the deposition size.
The combination of ‘806, ‘787, (optionally with ‘971) and McGraw’013 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 7: The moving mechanism 54 for the nozzle 53 is mounted in such a manner as to be movable along a guide rail 56 disposed in parallel with the retaining base 52 (‘787, [0085]), Fig. 5F of ‘806 and Fig. 12.1 on page 194 of McGraw’013 shows longer vent than delivery channel from bottom view, (includes the claimed “wherein at least a first length of the first exhaust aperture extends beyond that of a second length of the delivery aperture in a direction that the OVJP nozzle block or the substrate is configured to move for printing, wherein the first length and second length are in a plane that is parallel to the substrate, and wherein a first width of the exhaust aperture and a second width of the delivery aperture are in a plane that is perpendicular to the moving direction“).
‘806 further teaches the limitations of:
Claim 6: that the example mesh shown in FIG. 8 further assumes a nozzle opening of 10 μm ([0074], 6th sentence), FIGS. 22A-22D show, respectively, the velocity, pressure, temperature, and total flux for a single nozzle with a 70 micron opening ([0085], in short, nozzle width of 10~70 μm). Fig. 3A shows exhaust 300 having similar dimension as the first and second nozzles 310, 320 (this is outer profile, not showing nozzle size), while Figs. 5A-F shows nozzles 510 is about twice larger than exhausts 520, includes the claimed “wherein each delivery aperture is about 30 μm and each exhaust aperture is between about 25 μm in width”, Note the exact size is an optimization or scale up, as the size is clearly an effect parameter).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Davenport (US 6220286, hereafter ‘286).
The combination of ‘806 and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 8: wherein the delivery aperture and the first and second exhaust apertures are disposed on a protrusion of the OVJP nozzle block to position them in proximity with a substrate, and wherein regions between neighboring protrusions in an array contain confinement gas channels with flow paths to gas ambient surrounding the OVJP nozzle block.
‘286 is analogous art in the field of An improved nitrogen blanket distributor is provided for use in an atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus of the type used for semiconductor fabrication (abstract). ‘286 teaches that Referring to FIG. 1, the structures 12, 14a and 14b on either side of exhaust passages 336 and 338 are nitrogen distributors which provide a nitrogen blanket around the process area and the gas injection assembly 310. The function of these nitrogen distributors is to provide a steady flow of nitrogen to the regions surrounding the process gas injection operation to remove excess or spent process gasses and to prevent introduction of foreign materials into the process area. The nitrogen that is fed through these distributors is removed from the process area via exhaust passages 336 and 338, thus forming a continuous flow of inert gas surrounding the process area (col. 1, lines 39-51). Note structures 14a and 14b is shown as a protrusion having delivery and exhaust apertures.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the side view shape of the nozzle array in Fig. 5C of ‘806 to the shape in Fig. 1 of ‘286, for its suitability for blanket gas with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971), as being applied to claim 1 rejection above, further in view of Carrico (US 4682565, hereafter ‘565) and Wang et al. (US 6281098, hereafter ’098).
The combination of ‘806 and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 9: wherein a confinement gas from the confinement gas source has a higher average molar mass than a delivery gas from the delivery gas source.
’565 is analogous art in the field of Vapor Nozzle With Gas Barrier Bars (title), A vacuum vapor depositing system in which a plurality of vapor delivering nozzles fit between, and are guided by, bars supplying inert gas as barrier regions controlling the lateral spread of the vaporized material being deposited (abstract). ‘565 teaches that As noted above, a substantial vacuum is maintained in the chamber 10, and the evaporator 33 of the system 12 operates with a pressure in the tube 43 on the order of about 1 Torr, so that there is a considerable pressure differential urging the vapor through the nozzle walls 42. This flow is laterally controlled, however, by inert gas blocks created by a flow of Argon gas through the bar openings 37 (Figs. 3-6, col. 3, lines 18-25). Note Argon is a confinement gas in Applicants’ disclosure ([0140]).
’098 is analogous art in the field of A process for depositing polycrystalline silicon on substrates (abstract) from evaporation source (col. 28, line 17). ‘098 teaches that One skilled in the art will appreciate that reagents which are less dense than the purge gas may be confined in a confinement zone by placing openings in the coating apparatus such that they have vertical extent below the confinement zone (col. 14, lines 4-7).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted argon of ‘565 as the leakage preventing gas of ‘787, for the purpose of better confinement zone by more dense confinement gas, as taught by ‘098 (col. 14, lines 4-7).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971), as being applied to claim 22 rejection above, further in view of Shtein et al. (US 20050087131, hereafter ‘131).
The combination of ‘806 and ‘787 (optionally with ‘971) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 23: wherein the OVJP nozzle block further comprises the confinement distribution channels that provide a path for the flow of the confinement gas from a process chamber ambient to the confinement channels of each OVJP nozzle assembly.
‘131 is analogous art in the field of Organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) ([0024]). ‘131 teaches that in the flow regime of OVJP, a higher chamber pressure confines the gas jet ([0059], last sentence). ‘131 further teaches that to achieve a flattened-top deposit, the nozzle can be rastered over an area ([0049], 2nd sentence).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted the chamber pressure as confinement gas, as the confinement gas for Fig. 5C of ‘806, or in addition to the imported blocking gas channels 63A from ‘787, for the purpose of finer resolution, as taught by ‘131 ([0059]).
Note ‘131 also teaches that the guard flow gas is heavier than the molecular weight of the carrier gas, which enables the guard flow to more effectively contain the carrier gas ([0033], last sentence). Similar to the teaching of ‘098.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘806, ‘787, and ‘131 (optionally with ‘971), as being applied to claim 23 rejection above, further in view of ‘286.
The combination of ‘806, ‘787, and ‘131 (optionally with ‘971) does not teach the limitations of:
Claim 24: wherein the confinement gas channels include recesses in a surface of the OVJP nozzle block adjacent to the substrate.
‘286 is analogous art as discussed above. Fig. 1 of ‘286 also shows an inclined outer edge of the structures 14a and 14b (a recess for the blanket gases, same as Applicants’ Fig. 17).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the shape of the nozzle block 53 to Fig. 1 of ‘286, for its suitability for blanket gas with predictable results. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not convincing in light of the new grounds of rejection above.
Applicants argue that Yamamoto ‘787’s blocking air curtain for an opening that is used for discharge, and does not disclose a first and second exhaust apertures disposed between first and second confinement gas apertures, see the 2nd complete paragraph of page 12.
These arguments are found not persuasive.
‘787 teaches the solvent vapor supply source 70 is discharged via the discharge opening 61 ([0087], last sentence), which is the same as Applicants delivery gas. It appears Applicants misread discharge as plasma discharge.
‘787 also clearly teaches that
the outer opening 63A of each leakage preventing portion can be connected through the intake/supply piping 63b to the N2 gas supply source 80 of the solvent vapor blocking gas, and the inner opening 63B can be connected to the exhaust pump (not shown).
Therefore, this is clearly a blocking gas, exhaust, delivery, exhaust, purge blocking gas sequence, the blocking gas is the same function as confinement gas.
Furthermore, The OC has clearly set forth that ‘971 also teaches repeating pattern of purge, exhaust, delivery, exhaust, purge channels.
Applicants argue that Forrest ‘806 does not teach delivery aperture being shorter than the first and second exhaust apertures, see the last complete paragraph of page 12.
These arguments are found not persuasive.
Fig. 5F of ‘806 clearly shows delivery aperture being shorter than the first and second exhaust apertures.
Furthermore, ‘787 also teaches that The opening 63 is formed in the shape of a slit slightly longer than the discharge opening 61 ([0075], last sentence).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20050242062 is cited for suction portion 222 is longer than delivery port 221 (Fig. 19).
US 20150008402 is cited for operating at 250-300o C ([0159]) in addition to “Many of the devices are intended for use in a temperature range comfortable to humans, such as 18 degrees C. to 30 degrees C., and more preferably at room temperature (20-25 degrees C.), but could be used outside this temperature range, for example, from -40 degree C. to +80 degree C” ([0071]).
US 20030064604 is cited for moving either wafer stage or scan nozzle moving over the wafer ([0065]).
US 6933015 is cited for rastering in one direction only (Fig. 7).
US 20080012005 is cited for OVJD rastered across the substrate ([0106]).
US 20090130780 is cited for confinement gas 36 from a chamber ambient (Fig. 1).
US 20040224433 is cited for the staggered arrangement of nozzle heads 405 (Fig. 5) and curtain gas 708 (Fig. 7).
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 KEATH T CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1870. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00 pm.
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.
/KEATH T CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights