DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 4, 2026, has been entered.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended; claims 16-19 are new.
The applicant contends that the prior art fails to disclose the new material recited by independent claims 1 and 13 – namely, a surface treatment operation performed by the first and fourth clusters. Nozawa’s first and fourth clusters, on the other hand, are directed the deposition of films (p. 12).
In response, the examiner observes that paragraph [0105] of Nozawa establishes the capacity of the deposition units (cv), two of which are members of the first cluster (tc7), to generate a plasma. Given this capability, the operator can control the deposition unit (cv) of the first cluster to broadly perform a “surface treatment.” Similarly, because the sputtering chambers (sp1, sp2) of the fourth cluster (tc3) are also endowed with plasma-generating means, the operator can administer one of the sputtering units to apply “surface treatment,” since it has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
Election/Restriction
Newly submitted claims 17 and 19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: These claims recite a patentably distinct species of incorporating a liquid-phase processing unit within the first cluster, whereby the original claim set had already established the species of gas-phase processing. (New claims 16 and 18 recite an embodiment of gas-phase processing and, accordingly, are not subject to restriction.)
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa et al., US 2009/0206728.
Claims 1, 13: Nozawa discloses equipment for manufacturing a light-emitting device, comprising:
First through seventh clusters (tc) (Fig. 7);
Wherein the second cluster (tc6) is connected to the first cluster (tc7) through a first buffer chamber (al7);
Wherein the third cluster (tc5-tc4) is connected to the second cluster (tc6) through a second buffer chamber (al6);
Wherein the fourth cluster (tc3-tc2) is connected to the third cluster (tc5-tc4) through a third buffer chamber (al4);
Wherein the fifth cluster (tc9-tc10) is connected to the fourth cluster (tc3) thorough a fourth buffer chamber;
Wherein the sixth cluster (tc11-tc12) is connected to the fifth cluster (tc9-tc10) through a fifth buffer chamber (al9);
Wherein the seventh cluster (tc13-tc14) is connected to the sixth cluster (tc11-tc12) through a sixth buffer chamber (al11);
Wherein the first through seventh clusters are structurally arranged in the order of the process steps.
The first cluster (tc7) comprises multiple deposition chambers (cv3, cv4) which are capable of forming stacked organic and inorganic layers if so directed by the operator [0147]. Further, being plasma-capable deposition chambers, the operator can employ one or both to perform a surface treatment [0105, 0165]. It has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
The second cluster (tc6), as limned by Figure 7, includes sputtering chambers (sp3, sp4) but Nozawa contemplates an embodiment comprising a photolithography step, which necessarily entails the formation of a resist [0088]. It would have been obvious, then, in the pursuit of this second embodiment, to integrate a well-known device such as a spin-on coater to facilitate mask formation.
The third cluster (tc5-tc4) comprises etching chambers (et1, et2) which are capable of etching the stacked film and removing the resist mask.
The fourth cluster (tc3-tc2) comprises sputtering chambers (sp) and evaporation chambers (va) capable of forming organic and inorganic films. As the sputtering chambers comprise means for generating plasma, the operator may avail the device to perform the claimed step of “surface treatment” [0180].
The fifth cluster (tc9-tc10) includes a sputtering chamber (sp5) but Nozawa contemplates an embodiment comprising a photolithography step, which necessarily entails the formation of a resist [0088]. It would have been obvious, then, in the pursuit of this second embodiment, to integrate a well-known device such as a spin-on coater to facilitate mask formation.
The sixth cluster (tc11-tc12) includes both etching (et) and deposition (cv) chambers which are respectively capable of etching a stacked film, removing a resist mask, removing an inorganic film, and depositing an inorganic film.
The seventh cluster includes sputtering (sp) and deposition (cv) chambers which are capable of coating a film with a resin. The final limitation of claim 1 also requires the seventh cluster to “remove a part of a resin,” but it should be noted that Nozawa suggests combining the etching, deposition, and alignment apparatuses “in various ways, when appropriate.” Simply outfitting the final cluster with an already disclosed etching chamber would be within the scope of ordinary skill.
Claim 5: The simple act of replicating one of Nozawa’s etching clusters would be sufficient to satisfy this limitation, where as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). Nozawa, it should be noted, explicitly contemplates increasing the number of clusters [0148].
Claims 11, 15: The simple act of replicating one of Nozawa’s deposition clusters would be sufficient to satisfy this limitation, where as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Claims 16, 18: Nozawa explains that at least one of the deposition apparatuses (cv3, cv4) of the first cluster (tc7) may be configured to execute “plasma CVD” to generate the inorganic protection film (106) [0105, 0165]. Thus, the Office concludes that the deposition apparatus (cv3) of the first cluster (tc7) is capable of performing a fluorine-based surface treatment under plasma conditions, whereby it has been held that claims directed to an 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)).
Claims 2-4, 8, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Ikeda et al., US 2018/0039117.
Claims 2, 14: Nozawa’s sixth cluster only includes two dry etching apparatuses rather than three yet, given the reference’s suggestion that the chamber permutation of each cluster may be configured in various ways, the examiner understands the mere addition of one etching chamber to be within the scope of ordinary skill since as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8).
Although Nozawa teaches a lithography step, the reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed bake, light-exposure, and development apparatuses. In supplementation, Ikeda elaborates an analogous method of forming a light-emitting device entailing the steps of light-exposure and development, as well as pre- and post-bake operations [0157, 0281]. It would have been obvious to integrate these steps within Nozawa’s lithography process to achieve the predictable result of fabricating a light-emitting device; it would be further obvious to provide dedicated chambers for each of these operations for reasons of environmental containment and throughput.
Claim 3: Ikeda prescribes an ashing process [0269].
Claim 4: Ikeda prescribes film-formation via ALD [0214].
Claim 8: As discussed above, the mere act of replicating one of Nozawa’s etching clusters would be sufficient to satisfy the recitation of an eighth cluster, whereby Ikeda discloses an ashing operation.
Claim 12: As disclosed above, Nozawa provides evaporation (va) and sputtering (sp) apparatuses, whereby Ikeda suggests the deposition technique of ALD.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozawa in view of Boyd et al., US 2008/0057221.
Claims 6-7: Nozawa is silent regarding the phase status of the etchant. Boyd, though, describes an etching cluster comprising both wet (240) and dry (270) etching chambers [0045, 0048]. This arrangement augments the range of etching operations by facilitating plasma-based etching alongside wet operations, while enhancing efficiency by locating both types within the same cluster [0004]. For at least these reasons, it would have been obvious to include both wet and dry units within Nozawa’s etching cluster.
Claims 9-10: As discussed above, Boyd discloses a cluster comprising both plural wet and plural dry etching units [0045, 0048].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Yamazaki et al., US 2004/0040504. Yamazaki discloses an apparatus for forming a light-emitting device comprising first through fourth clusters capable of executing sputtering, evaporation, and etching ([0141-0145]; Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. 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.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716