CTNF 17/758,220 CTNF 72222 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “ a power module ” in claims 5 and 15. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, “ a power module ” in claims 5 and 16 is interpreted as a power connector connecting a power source outside the chamber to the crucible as seen in Figure 4. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The limitations “conductive member” in claims 3 and 13 and “motor member” in claims 7 and 17 do not meet the three-prong test in that the generic placeholder (conductive member, motor member) is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Specifically, in claims 3 and 13 the conductive member is modified to comprise “a conductive rod and a ceramic disposed around the conductive rod, and the conductive rod is sealed and connected to the box body through the ceramic”; and in claims 7 and 17 the motor member is modified to comprise “ a motor support and a vacuum motor; the motor support is located on the pedestal, and the vacuum motor is located on the motor support; and wherein the vacuum motor is sealed and connected with the control valve through a transmission mechanism”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiku et al, JP2012057235, in view of Schowalter et al, 2007/0101932 A1 . Regarding claims 1 and 11, Daiku et al teaches an evaporation source system, comprising an evaporation source device 1 and a substrate K disposed in the evaporation source device, the evaporation source device 1 comprising: a vacuum chamber 2; at least one vacuum box 12 in the vacuum chamber, a crucible 11 disposed in the vacuum box 12; and at least one control valve 14 disposed in the vacuum chamber 2, the vacuum box 12 connected with the control valve 14; wherein the control valve 14 comprises a first nozzle (pipe 13 upstream of valve 14), a second nozzle (pipe 13 downstream of valve 14) disposed oppositely, the first nozzle communicates with the vacuum box 12, and the second nozzle communicates with the vacuum chamber 2. Daiku et al differs from the present invention in that Daiku et al does not teach a pedestal disposed in the vacuum chamber and supporting the vacuum box. Schowalter et al teaches pedestal 14 disposed in the vacuum chamber 2 and supporting the vacuum box 3. The motivation for adding the pedestal of Schowalter et al to the apparatus of Daiku et al is to provide a support for the vacuum box of Daiku et al as taught by Schowalter et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc .). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add a pedestal to the apparatus of Daiku et al as taught by Schowalter et al. Regarding claims 2 and 12, the vacuum box of Daiku et al inherently includes a box body and a box cover, the box cover is sealed and coupled with the box body to allow access to the crucible 11; and teaches that the first nozzle is communicated with the vacuum box through the box cover. (Figure 1) Regarding claims 7 and 17, Daiku et al teaches a motor member is disposed in the vacuum chamber 2, and the motor member comprises a motor support (inherent to hold motor 15) and a vacuum motor 15; the motor support is located on the pedestal, and the vacuum motor is located on the motor support; and wherein the vacuum motor is sealed and connected with the control valve through a transmission mechanism (Figure 1). Regarding claims 8 and 18, Daiku et al teaches that the transmission mechanism is a casing, and the control valve is a corrugated metering valve . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daiku et al and Schowalter et al as applied to claim s 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Zou, CN 107400859 B . Regarding claims 3 and 13, Daiku et al and Schowalter et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the vacuum box comprises a conductive member, the conductive member comprises a conductive rod and a ceramic disposed around the conductive rod, and the conductive rod is sealed and connected to the box body through the ceramic. Zou teaches a vacuum box with a heater that comprises a conductive member 101, 103, 104, 105 the conductive member comprises a conductive rod 101, 105 and a ceramic 109 disposed around the conductive rod, and the conductive rod is sealed and connected to the box body through the ceramic. The motivation for adding the vacuum box heater of Zou to the vacuum box of Daiku et al and Schowalter et al is to provide a heater as required but not disclosed by Daiku et al and Schowalter et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc .). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add the vacuum box heater of Zou to the vacuum box of Daiku et al and Schowalter et al. Regarding claims 4 and 14, Zou teaches that the conductive rod 105 comprises a first conductive part 107, 108 and a second conductive part 105 continuously disposed, the first conductive part 107, 108 is located outside a box of the vacuum box, and the second conductive part 105 is located in the box of the vacuum box. Regarding claims 5 and 15, Zou teaches that a power module is disposed in the vacuum chamber; and wherein the first conductive part 107, 108 is electrically connected to the power module, and the second conductive part 105 is electrically connected to the crucible. Regarding claims 6 and 16, Zou teaches that a width of the second conductive part 105 is greater than a width of the first conductive part 107, 108 in a direction perpendicular to an extending direction of the conductive rod. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Daiku et al teaches a block 36 is disposed in the vacuum box 12, and the block is located on a side of the crucible 11 close to the first nozzle; and wherein in a direction from the crucible to the first nozzle, a through holes are defined on the graphite block. Daiku et al differs from the present invention in that Daiku et al does not teach that the block is graphite and has a plurality of through holes. Zou teaches the use of graphite as a material of construction. Furthermore, it has been held that: the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obviousness ( Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)); and reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious that selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle (325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301). It was held in In re Harza (124 USPQ 378) that the duplication of parts is obvious. (See MPEP 2144) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to make the block of Daiku et al out of graphite as taught by Zou and to duplicate the through hole of Daiku et al . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The evaporation source device of claim 9, and the evaporation source system of claim 19 were not found in or suggested by the art, specifically, at least three support rods are disposed on the pedestal, and a bearing platform is disposed on a side of the at least three support rods away from the pedestal; and wherein the bearing platform is located on a side of the second nozzle away from the first nozzle . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. US 4876114 A teaches a pedestal and could be used in place of Schowalter et al in the above rejections. WO 2020086422 A1 teaches the use of graphite and could be used in place of Zou in the rejection of claims 10 and 20 above . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday). 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 at (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. /Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 2 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 3 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 4 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 5 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 6 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 7 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 8 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 9 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 10 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 11 Art Unit: 1716 Application/Control Number: 17/758,220 Page 12 Art Unit: 1716