DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on October 1, 2025 was received and has been entered. Claims 1-3, and 7 were amended. Claims 4-6, 8-9, 14-15, 19-20, 26, and 30 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-3 and 7 are in the application and pending examination. Claims 10-13, 16-18, 21-25, 27-29, and 31 were previously withdrawn. Replacement Fig. 7B was submitted. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The previous objection to claim 7 based on the limitation “quick-connect fittings at the gas input channel and gas exit channel” is withdrawn based on the submission of replacement Fig. 7B. However, a suggested revision would be to include a reference numeral instead of a word label in Fig. 7B
The previous objection to claim 7 based on the limitation “gas input and a gas exit of the solid material sublimation source” is withdrawn based on the reference numerals 701, 702 in Fig. 7B
The previous objection Figs. 3A-3B is maintained.
Figures 3A-3B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Applicants arguments are not persuasive. Further, Fig. 3B of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190386256 A1 to Quinn shows the structure of Fig. 3A. In addition, paragraph 20 identifies these structures as “conventional”.
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 “long axis” in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figs. 7A-7B are objected to because the orientation of chambers 710 and 730 is not consistent between the two views. Clarification is requested.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained.
Claim Objections
The previous objection to claims 3 and 7 based on their dependence on claim 0 is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 0.
The previous objection to claim 7 for reciting “the …rectangular channels” is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 7.
Claim 7 recites: “quick-connect fittings”.
While applicant may act as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Applicant confirmation that this term is correct is accepted. Alternatives are as follows “quick connect” or “quick-disconnect fittings”.
Claim 3 is objected to for reciting “the print head”. A suggested revision is “the OVJP print head”.
Claim 7 is objected to for reciting “each chamber comprising”. A suggested revision is “each rectangular chamber of the plurality of rectangular chambers comprising”.
Claim 7 is objected to for reciting “end of the chamber”. A suggested revision is “ end of each rectangular chamber of the plurality of rectangular chambers”.
Claim 7 is objected to for reciting “ second end being across a long axis of the chamber from the first end ”. A suggested revision is “ second end being across an extending in a length direction of said each rectangular chamber of the plurality of rectangular chambers from the first end ”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6,367,414 B2 to Witzman et al (hereinafter Witzman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1. (The previous heading had a typographical error referred to claim 7 instead of claim 3. The heading has been corrected above.)
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180342675 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) .
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a deposition system comprising: a solid material sublimation source ( paragraph 71, 2303 in paragraph 122);
an OVJP print head (end portion of conduit in Figs. 3a-c, 6B, 7, Fig. 11a) ; and one or more gas transit lines ( lines enclosing delivery to exhaust spacing in paragraphs 14-15) connecting an exit channel of the solid material sublimation source to the OVJP print head (depositor aperture) ; wherein a gas flow path ( delivery to exhaust spacing in paragraphs 14-15) between the solid material sublimation source (2303). (See Xu, Abstract, paragraphs 14, 71, 80, 88, 122, and Figs. 1-20 )
Xu does not explicitly teach a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate having a maximum length and a maximum width.
McGraw teaches a substrate holder (substrate holder) configured to hold a substrate (302) having a maximum length (1000um.) and a maximum width (1000 um). (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 95, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a substrate holder configured to hold a substrate having a maximum length and a maximum width, because McGraw teaches this is would be effective structure for holding a substrate to receive a OVJP printed feature. (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 95, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
Xu does not explicitly teach wherein a gas flow path between the solid material sublimation source and the head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one half of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width.
McGraw teaches wherein a gas flow path ( less than 400 um, less than 130um) between the solid material sublimation source (2303) and the head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one half (less than 500 um) of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width (1000 um) (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 95, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas flow path between the solid material sublimation source and the head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one half of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width, because McGraw teaches this structure would be effective for operating the PDC with desired utilization efficiency based on the delivery flow rate for the DE spacer length. (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 26-29, 54, 71, 72, 75-80, 88-99, 107, 114-115, 122, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
Regarding claim 3, Xu does not explicitly teach wherein a gas flow path between the solid material sublimation source and the OVJP print head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one quarter of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width.
McGraw teaches wherein a gas flow path ( less than 130um) between the solid material sublimation source (2303) and the head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one quarter (less than 250 um) of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width (1000 um) (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 95, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a gas flow path between the solid material sublimation source and the head through the one or more gas transit lines is not more than one quarter of the largest of the maximum length and the maximum width, because McGraw teaches this structure would be effective for operating the PDC with desired utilization efficiency based on the delivery flow rate for the DE spacer length. (See McGraw, Abstract, paragraphs 26-29, 54, 71, 72, 75-80, 88-99, 107, 114-115, 122, 126, 152, and 162, and Fig. 11.)
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6, 367,414 B2 to Witzman et al (hereinafter Witzman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080193645 A1 to Toda et al (hereinafter Toda) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180342675 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20080193645 A1 to Toda et al (hereinafter Toda).
Regarding claim 2, Xu does not explicitly teach an internal gas flow path within the solid material sublimation source is not less than 15 cm (5.91 inches).
Toda teaches a vaporizer for heating material to be deposited on a target substrate.
Toda teaches the vaporizer has a vaporizer tube that may be greater than 15 cm (several hundred mm). (See Toda, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 21, 26, 181, 212, and 268.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an internal gas flow path within the solid material sublimation source is not less than 15 cm, because Toda teaches this structure would allow the vaporizer to operate with other devices for long term without clogging. (See Toda, Abstract, Figs. 1-23, and paragraphs 21, 26, 181, 212, and 268.)
The previous rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6, 367,414 B2 to Witzman et al (hereinafter Witzman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070218199 A1 to Bresnahan (hereinafter Bresnahan) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180342675 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20070218199 A1 to Bresnahan (hereinafter Bresnahan).
Regarding claim 2, Xu does not explicitly teach an internal gas flow path within the solid material sublimation source is not less than 15 cm (5.91 inches).
Bresnahan teaches a crucible for heating material to be deposited on a target substrate.
Bresnahan teaches the crucible can have a length of up to 63.5 cm (25 inches). (See Bresnahan, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 29, 70-71.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute different lengths of an internal gas flow path within the solid material sublimation source, through routine experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success, to the select the proper length for the solid material sublimation source (crucible), as a result-effective variable, in order to facilitate the desired size or volume of source material as well as provide the optimal path of the atoms and molecules of the vaporized source materials to be adjusted. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1969)) (See Bresnahan, Abstract, Figs. 1-9, paragraphs 29, 70-71.)
The previous rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Num. 6, 367,414 B2 to Witzman et al (hereinafter Witzman) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,904,771 to Tasaki et al (hereinafter Tasaki) and US Pat. Num. 6,210,485 B1 to Zhao et al (hereinafter Zhao) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20180342675 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20150380648 A1 to McGraw et al (hereinafter McGraw) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 5,904,771 to Tasaki et al (hereinafter Tasaki) and US Pat. Num. 6,210,485 B1 to Zhao et al (hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 7, Xu does not explicitly teach the solid material sublimation source comprises: a plurality of rectangular chambers, each chamber comprising:
a gas input channel at a first end of the chamber;
a gas exit channel at a second end of the chamber, the second end being across a long axis of the chamber from the first end.
Tasaki is directed to method for subliming materials.
Tasaki teaches the solid material sublimation source comprises: a plurality of rectangular chambers (2, 9), each chamber comprising:
a gas input channel at a first end of the chamber (bottom);
a gas exit channel at a second end of the chamber (top), the second end being across a long axis of the chamber from the first end. (See Tasaki, Abstract, col. 3, lines 36-67; col. 6, lines 45-65.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the solid material sublimation source comprises: a plurality of rectangular chambers, each chamber comprising: a gas input channel at a first end of the chamber; a gas exit channel at a second end of the chamber, the second end being across a long axis of the chamber from the first end, because Tasaki teaches this structure would allow the source material gas and carrier gas from the containers. (See Tasaki, Abstract, col. 3, lines 36-67; col. 5, lines 15-25; col. 6, lines 45-65.)
Regarding claim 7, Xu does not explicitly teach quick-connect fittings at the gas input channel and gas exit channel; wherein each of the plurality of rectangular channels is connectable via the quick-connect fittings to any of the other of the plurality of rectangular channels and to a gas input and a gas exit of the solid material sublimation source.
Zhao is directed to an apparatus and process for subliming materials and depositing a film on a substrate.
Zhao teaches the quick-connect fittings (206) are known for use in a vaporizer. (See Zhao, Abstract, Fig. 5, col. 6, lines 37-44; and col. 7, lines 50-60.)
The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. lnterchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, taking the references as a whole, it would have been obvious to have quick-connect fittings at the gas input channel and gas exit channel; wherein each of the plurality of rectangular channels is connectable via the quick-connect fittings to any of the other of the plurality of rectangular channels and to a gas input and a gas exit of the solid material sublimation source with a reasonable expectation of success, because Zhao teaches quick-disconnect fittings are a known way to connect conduits and lines in a vaporizing device. (See Zhao, Abstract, Fig. 5, col. 6, lines 37-44; and col. 7, lines 50-60.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 1, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. US Pat. Pub. No. 20180342675 A1 to Xu et al (hereinafter Xu) is being used to address the amendments to claim 1.
Conclusion
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717