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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn as being directed towards a non-elected invention.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 10-20) in the reply filed on 3/2/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is 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, which depends directly from claim 18 and indirectly from independent claim 10, requires two parallel exhaust apertures with at least first, second and third delivery apertures therebetween, and further defines spacing between the delivery apertures. Claim 19 requires a gap between the first and second exhaust apertures ‘corresponding’ to the separation between first and second and second and third delivery apertures. It is unclear from this claim language whether the inherently required spacing between the exhaust apertures to contain the previously required delivery apertures therebetween is being recited, or some other property of the spacing is being required beyond this. Claim 19 is therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGraw (US 20190232325).
As to claim 10, McGraw discloses an OVJP device comprising:
A deposition block comprising a depositor on its surface (figure 4, paragraph 75: deposition array die [block] of the OVJP device) comprising:
First and second exhaust apertures having a major and smaller minor axis (figure 5B: showing structure with elongated exhaust channel 505 [having unlabeled ‘long’ and ‘short’ dimensions/axes illustrated]);
A plurality of at least three delivery apertures disposed between the first and second exhaust apertures and fluidly output coupled to the exhaust apertures (figure 5b: delivery vias [apertures] 506 between exhaust apertures 505);
Wherein the plurality of delivery apertures is not mirror symmetric about any line perpendicular to a first axis parallel to the major axis of the exhaust apertures (figure 5b: showing orientation of delivery apertures 506 without symmetry across any drawn ‘top to bottom’ lines [perpendicular to major axes of exhausts 505]);
Wherein there are not further delivery apertures or exhaust apertures in the ‘first region’ defined by the above discussed apertures and first and second exhaust aperture (figure 5b).
As to claim 12, McGraw discloses an embodiment with a plurality of depositors with the same exhaust and delivery aperture arrangement (figure 13: first and second array 1301 and 1303).
As to claim 13, McGraw discloses adjacent depositors share a common exhaust aperture (figure 13: top and bottom arrays (1301 and 1303) sharing the middle exhaust apertures 1305 and 1306 with middle depositor array 1302).
As to claim 14-17, McGraw discloses an array of apertures with a 50 micron scale drawn (figure 7b) in which a furthermost top left corner aperture [first] and bottom right corner aperture [second] is separated by approximately 50 micron in a direction perpendicular to the exhaust major axis and approximately 150 micron in the direction parallel to the exhaust major axis [the indicated values 50 and 150, based upon scale 706, are certainly lower than an accurately measured value].
As to claim 18, McGraw discloses the array of apertures has a third centrally located aperture (figure 7b, arbitrarily chosen ‘center’ location aperture) that would be approximately 25 microns from the second ‘corner’ aperture in the direction perpendicular to major exhaust axis and approximately 75 microns from the second aperture in the direction parallel to the major exhaust axis (figure 7b scale, values half the approximate overall values as discussed above).
As to claim 19, McGraw discloses the exhaust apertures and delivery apertures all have corresponding gaps therebetween (figure 5b, 7b).
As to claim 20, McGraw discloses a OVJP device comprising:
A deposition block comprising a depositor on its surface (figure 4, paragraph 75: deposition array die [block] of the OVJP device) comprising:
A first exhaust aperture having a major axis and minor axis perpendicular to the major axis (figure 5b: first exhaust via [aperture] 505 with elongation along major axis and width along minor axis);
A second exhaust aperture having major and perpendicular minor axis, the major axis parallel to the first exhaust aperture’s major axis (figure 5b: second exhaust aperture 505 [top and bottom – first and second exhaust apertures] parallel to the first along elongation/major axis direction);
Three or more delivery apertures between the first and second exhaust apertures major axes and fluidly coupled to the first and second exhaust apertures (figure 5b: array of delivery apertures 506).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGraw as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mohan (US 20140057390).
As to claim 11, McGraw discloses McGraw discloses an OVJP with an arrangement of a plurality of delivery apertures between exhaust apertures as discussed above, but is silent as to the delivery apertures having arrangement with mirror symmetry relative to the major axis of the exhaust/first axis.
Mohan discloses a OVJP (title) in which multiple delivery apertures [nozzles] are provided, embodiments of the arrangement including arrangements with bilateral symmetry (figure 11: embodiment 322), no symmetry (figure 11: embodiment 324) and symmetry in one direction but not the perpendicular direction (figure 1: embodiment 332). Mohan discloses the arrangement of nozzles, among other adjustable parameters, are used to obtain uniform deposition with the desired printing output in a single pass (paragraph 88-90).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the delivery apertures having the desired symmetrical and staggered arrangements of Mohan, in the system of McGraw, because this allows for control of the printing output to be uniform and sharp with only a single pass.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights