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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending
Claims 16-17 have been added
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, 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) 1, 8, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276).
Regarding Claim 1:
Babbs teaches manufacturing equipment of a light-emitting device, the manufacturing equipment comprising a load lock chamber (transfer chamber 21001), a vacuum controlled cluster (processing cell 21005B), and an atmosphere controlled cluster (processing cell 21005A, it is noted that each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled, or sealed atmosphere with N2, clean air, or a vacuum), wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a first delivery device (the transfer robot within processing cell 21005C), a plurality of film formation apparatuses (processing cell 21005C may include processing modules 11002), and an etching apparatus (the processing modules may perform etching), wherein the atmosphere controlled cluster comprises a second delivery device (the transfer robot within processing cell 21005A) and a plurality of apparatuses performing a lithography step (processing cell 21005A may include processing modules 11002; the processing modules may perform lithography) [Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the load lock chamber is connected to the vacuum controlled cluster through a first gate valve, wherein the load lock chamber is connected to the atmosphere controlled cluster through a second gate valve.
Yedla teaches wherein the load lock chamber is connected to the vacuum controlled cluster through a first gate valve, wherein the load lock chamber is connected to the atmosphere controlled cluster through a second gate valve (the intermediate transfer chamber 240 is connected to all process modules 250 via processing system valves 248) [Fig. 2B, 8 & 0046, 0048, 0058, 0061, 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include gate valves between load lock chambers and other chambers to provide better control over substrate movement and chamber atmospheres [Yedla - 0046].
Furthermore, the limitations “wherein a pressure in the load lock chamber is controlled to be a reduced pressure or an atmosphere in the load lock chamber is controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere, wherein a pressure in the vacuum controlled cluster is controlled to be a reduced pressure, wherein an atmosphere in the atmosphere controlled cluster is controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere, and wherein the manufacturing equipment forms the light-emitting device by forming, over a substrate provided with a first electrode, an island-shaped organic compound layer over the first electrode, a second electrode over the organic compound layer, and a protective film over the second electrode through a plurality of film formation steps in the vacuum controlled cluster, a lithography step in the atmosphere controlled cluster, and an etching step in the vacuum controlled cluster” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled, or sealed atmosphere with N2, clean air, or a vacuum. It's further noted that processing cell 21005A of Babbs may include processing modules 11002; the processing modules may perform processes such as PVD, CVD, ALD, or lithography. As such, the combination of references of would be capable of forming the layers as claimed [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
Regarding Claim 8:
Babbs teaches wherein the load lock chamber (transfer chamber 21001) is connected to either a load/unload chamber (transfer chamber 22001) or a load chamber and an unload chamber [Fig. 22 & 0073].
Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the load lock chamber is connected to either a load/unload chamber or a load chamber and an unload chamber through a fourth gate valve.
Yedla teaches wherein the load lock chamber (transfer chamber 240) is connected to either a load/unload chamber (front end 220) or a load chamber and an unload chamber through a fourth gate valve (transfer chamber 240 is connected to front end 220 via load lock chamber 240a and processing system valve 248) [Fig. 2B, 8 & 0046, 0048, 0058, 0061, 0091].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include gate valves between load lock chambers and other chambers to provide better control over substrate movement and chamber atmospheres [Yedla - 0046].
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled, or sealed atmosphere with N2, clean air, or a vacuum. It's further noted that processing cell 21005A of Babbs may include processing modules 11002; the processing modules may perform processes such as PVD, CVD, ALD, or lithography. As such, the combination of references of would be capable of forming the layers as claimed [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is merely intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled, or sealed atmosphere with N2, clean air, or a vacuum. It's further noted that processing cell 21005A of Babbs may include processing modules 11002; the processing modules may perform processes such as PVD, CVD, ALD, or lithography. As such, the combination of references of would be capable of forming the layers as claimed [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and further in view of Prakash (US 20050017628).
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 16-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 2:
Modified Babbs teaches wherein each of the plurality of film formation apparatuses is one or more selected from an evaporation apparatus, a sputtering apparatus, a CVD apparatus, and an ALD apparatus (the processing modules may perform processes such as PVD, CVD, or ALD) [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the etching apparatus is a dry etching apparatus.
Prakash teaches wherein the etching apparatus is a dry etching apparatus (dry etching is performed in substrate treatment) [Fig. 1 & 0025, 0072-0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Modified Babbs to include a dry etching apparatus, as in Prakash, because dry etching provide a relatively cleaner and lower cost technique to remove organic materials [Prakash - 0025]. It's also noted that Babbs discloses that its processing modules may perform other etching processes [Babbs - 0031].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276), as applied to claims 1, 8, 16-17 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20030227253).
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 16-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a vacuum baking apparatus.
Seo teaches wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a vacuum baking apparatus (bake chamber 423) [Fig. 1 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vacuum controlled cluster (transfer chamber of processing cell 21005C of Babbs) of Modified Babbs to include a vacuum baking apparatus, as in Seo, since Seo establishes vacuum baking as a known process in the art, and as such, utilizing a vacuum baking chamber merely be a simple substitution to achieve predictable results [See - MPEP 2143 B; Seo - 0071]. It's also noted that Babbs discloses that its processing modules may perform RTP [Babbs - 0031].
Regarding Claim 4:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the load lock chamber is connected to a vacuum baking apparatus through a third gate valve.
Seo teaches wherein the load lock chamber is connected to a vacuum baking apparatus through a third gate valve (bake chamber 423) [Fig. 1 & 0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vacuum controlled cluster (transfer chamber of processing cell 21005C of Babbs) of Modified Babbs to include a vacuum baking apparatus, as in Seo, since Seo establishes vacuum baking as a known process in the art, and as such, utilizing a vacuum baking chamber merely be a simple substitution to achieve predictable results [See - MPEP 2143 B; Seo - 0071]. It's also noted that Babbs discloses that its processing modules may perform RTP [Babbs - 0031].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276), as applied to claims 1, m8, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (US 20130167339) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20180371136), with Yang et al. (US 20160351423), Wuister et al. (US 20160266486), and Lee et al. (US 20130139712) as evidentiary references.
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 16-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 6:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of apparatuses performing the lithography step comprise an application apparatus, a light-exposure apparatus, a development apparatus, and a baking apparatus.
Hara teaches wherein the plurality of apparatuses performing the lithography step comprise an application apparatus, a light-exposure apparatus, a development apparatus, and a baking apparatus (the lithography process described includes application, exposure, and development; prebake/resist is performed) [Fig. 1 & 0043, 0086].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lithography chambers of Modified Babbs to include comprise an application apparatus, a light-exposure apparatus, a development apparatus, and a baking apparatus, as in Hara, since Hara establishes the listed apparatuses as known processes for lithography in the art, and as such, utilizing such apparatuses would merely be simple substitutions to achieve predictable results [See - MPEP 2143 B; Hara - 0071]. Yang et al. (US 20160351423) and Wuister et al. (US 20160266486) also disclose that baking is a known process for lithography [Yang - 0016; Wuister - 0067].
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose a nanoimprint apparatus, however, Kobayashi discloses that nanoimprint lithography is advantageous since it allows nanoscale processing simply and inexpensively [Kobayashi - 0002]. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify any of the apparatuses of Modified Babbs to be a nanoimprint apparatus. Lee et al. (US 20130139712) also discloses that nanoimprint apparatuses are a well-known technique in the art [Lee - 0006].
Claim(s) 7, 9-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276), as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Schuesler (EP 2098608).
The limitations of claims 1, 8, and 16-17 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 7:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the load lock chamber comprises a substrate rotating mechanism rotating the substrate about an axis perpendicular to a center of a top surface of the substrate
Schuesler teaches wherein the load lock chamber comprises a substrate rotating mechanism rotating the substrate about an axis perpendicular to a center of a top surface of the substrate (the moveable support 13 is rotated, and as such, a mechanism to rotate the support 13 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 4 & 0030, 0057, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs that can rotate a substrate and rotation mechanisms in the chambers, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Regarding Claim 9:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose the substrate attached to a substrate delivering jig is subjected to treatment.
Schuesler teaches the substrate attached to a substrate delivering jig (movable support 13 and end plates 402 and 403) is subjected to treatment (a substrate may be inserted into the movable support 13) [Fig. 4 & 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Regarding Claim 10:
Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate delivering jig comprises a first jig and a second jig, and wherein the substrate is held between the first jig and the second jig.
Schuesler teaches wherein the substrate delivering jig comprises a first jig (central plate structure 408) and a second jig (a mask can be held inside arch bracket 410), and wherein the substrate is held between the first jig and the second jig (a substrate can be inserted in rail 407 which is disposed between central plate structure 415 and arch bracket 410) [Fig. 4 & 0057, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Regarding Claim 11:
Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the first jig comprises a flat-plate portion having a rectangular top surface shape, and wherein the first jig comprises a plurality of through holes penetrating the first jig from a first side surface of the flat-plate portion to a second side surface opposing the first side surface.
Schuesler teaches and wherein the first jig comprises a plurality of through holes (rail 407) penetrating the first jig from a first side surface of the flat-plate portion to a second side surface opposing the first side surface (as evidenced by Fig. 4, rail 407 penetrates through the end plate 403) [Fig. 4 & 0057, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Regarding Claim 12:
The limitations of claim 12 are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. 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). It is noted that rail 407 of Schuesler is capable of holding a substrate. Additionally, the rail 407 is part of moveable support 13 which is rotatable. As such, the rail 407 is being used to rotate a substrate. Furthermore, an actuator or external arm would still be capable of directly utilizing the rails 407 or 404 to physically push and rotate the moveable support 13) [Schuesler - Fig. 4 & 0057, 0060].
Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of references would disclose "wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a device detaching the substrate delivering jig," since Babbs discloses multiple transfer robots that would be capable of removing a substrate from a carrier [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Regarding Claim 15:
Modified Schuesler does not specifically disclose wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a device reversing the substrate to which the substrate delivering jig is attached.
Schuesler teaches wherein the vacuum controlled cluster comprises a device reversing the substrate to which the substrate delivering jig is attached (the moveable support 13 is rotated, and as such, a mechanism to rotate the support 13 can be reasonably inferred) [Fig. 4 & 0057, 0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Babbs to include delivering jigs, as in Schuesler, since the delivering jig of Schuesler requires less effort for substrate movement, as well as reducing the number of movement devices required [Schuesler - 0017].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) in view of Yedla et al. (US 20200381276) and Schuesler (EP 2098608), as applied to claims 7, 9-12, 14-15 above, and further in view of Nishida et al. (US 20190036025)
The limitations of claims 7, 9-12 and 14-15 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Modified Babbs does not specifically disclose wherein the second jig comprises an opening portion.
Although the mask of Schuesler does not specifically disclose an opening portion for its second jig (the mask of Schuesler), Nishida does establish that masks with opening portions (openings 3) are known in the art [Nishida - Fig. 1 & 0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second jig of Modified Babbs to include opening portions, as in Nishida, since utilizing masks with openings would merely be simple substitutions to achieve predictable results [See - MPEP 2143 B].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “wherein the manufacturing equipment forms the light-emitting device by forming, over a substrate provided with a first electrode, an island-shaped organic compound layer over the first electrode, a second electrode over the organic compound layer, and a protective film over the second electrode through a plurality of film formation steps in the vacuum controlled cluster, a lithography step in the atmosphere controlled cluster, and an etching step in the vacuum controlled cluster,” because Babbs et al. (US 20140202921) does not specifically disclose a lithography step within an inert gas atmosphere.
Firstly, the examiner would again like to point out that Babbs discloses that any of each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled or sealed atmosphere (e.g. N2, clean air, vacuum), and as such, any of the chamber modules may be a vacuum or atmosphere controlled [Babbs - 0032]. Therefore, Babbs explicitly discloses vacuum and atmosphere controlled clusters.
Secondly, Babbs explicitly discloses that each processing station may perform processes such as plasma etch or other etching processes, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), plasma vapor deposition (PVD), implantation such as ion implantation, metrology, rapid thermal processing (RTP), dry strip atomic layer deposition (ALD), oxidation/diffusion, forming of nitrides, vacuum lithography, epitaxy (EPI), wire bonder and evaporation or other thin film processes that use vacuum pressures [Babbs - 0031]. As such, Babbs discloses various deposition and etching processes capable of forming the claimed layers.
Thirdly, the examiner would like to note that the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The applicant argues that lithography is performed in an inert gas atmosphere. However, this limitation is not present within claim 1. Currently claim 1 claims “a lithography step in the atmosphere controlled cluster,” and “wherein an atmosphere in the atmosphere controlled cluster is controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere.” The applicant has not specifically claimed that the lithography step occurs in an inert gas processing chamber specifically, rather that there is a lithography step in the atmosphere controlled cluster, wherein an atmosphere of the atmosphere controlled is controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere. Babbs discloses a vacuum controlled cluster (processing cell 21005B), and an atmosphere controlled cluster (processing cell 21005A, it is noted that each chamber module may be capable of holding an isolated, controlled, or sealed atmosphere with N2, clean air, or a vacuum) [Babbs - Fig. 21, 22 & 0031-0033, 0072-0073]. It’s also noted that since Babbs discloses that the processing stations may perform vacuum processing, they would also be capable of holding an inert gas pressure environment, and as such, Babbs would be capable of performing an inert gas lithography step in any of the processing modules 11002 of each respective processing cell at either vacuum or atmospheric conditions. The examiner would further like to note that since any of each chamber module may be capable of holding an N2 atmosphere, fluidly connected processing modules may also receive N2 and hold an inert gas atmosphere. It’s also noted that the limitation “controlled to be an inert gas atmosphere” is also an intended use. As such, there is not even a structural inert gas atmosphere that has been claimed in the claims.
Furthermore, Babbs discloses that the processing stations may operate on the substrates through typical processes, but are not limited to the ones listed [Babbs - 0031]. Lithography in an inert gas atmosphere is a well-known technique in the art, as evidenced by Iwasawa et al. (US 20140205956) [Iwasawa - 0064]. The examiner would also like to reiterate that intended use are given weight only to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 4:30 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights