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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Claims 10-12 are objected to because they do not show all claim amendments. Claim 10 was previously missing. Misnumbered claims 11-13 have been renumbered 10-12, respectively, as requested. However, the claim renumbering should be reflected as claim amendments and the claim amendments made must be reflected in the claim set in all subsequent actions.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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/are: claim 1 evaporation source which has been interpreted as a nozzle and crucible with heater and thermocouple, and equivalents thereto, as set forth, e.g., in the specification at para. 39.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified KR 20040004755 to Asada et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0162647 to Chi.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-6, e.g., Asada et al. disclose a system for deposition of evaporated material on a substrate (3) substantially as claimed, the substrate having a central axis (e.g., a central vertical axis), the system comprising: (a) an evaporation chamber (1); (b) at least one nozzle assembly (plurality of structures) having a plurality of point evaporation sources (7), the point evaporation sources disposed adjacent to the central axis of the substrate and at a distance from the substrate whereby the nozzle assembly provides for (i.e. is capable of providing for) molecules of evaporated material to arrive at the substrate at an incident angle of less than or equal to 5 degrees; and (c) a shadow mask (4A) disposed adjacent the substrate.
With respect to the claimed incident angle of less than or equal to 5 degrees, Asada et al. disclose that an angle of each point evaporation source of the plurality of the point evaporation sources can be freely selected and adjusted to achieve a desired incident angle (see, e.g., translation), wherein the courts have rule where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, Asada et al. fail to explicitly disclose, each evaporation source of the nozzle assembly including in addition to a crucible (7), a nozzle, heater and thermocouple.
As part of a system for deposition of evaporated material, Chi discloses a nozzle assembly comprising a plurality of point evaporation sources, wherein evaporation source of the plurality of evaporation sources comprises a crucible (120), nozzle ([formed by 140], see, e.g., paras. 32-33), and thermocouple (not illustrated, see, e.g., para. 30) for the purpose of providing a system which prevents adhesion of deposition material to the nozzle assembly so that maintenance, management and use of the nozzle assembly is made easy (see, e.g., para. 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the system of Asada et al. comprising point evaporation sources including a crucible, nozzle and thermocouple in order to provide a system which prevents adhesion of deposition material to the nozzle assembly so that maintenance, management and use of the nozzle assembly is made easy as taught by Chi.
With respect to claim 2, in modified Asada et al., with respect to the size of the substrate, Examiner notes that the courts have ruled the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Young, 75 F.2d 966, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). Additionally, with respect to the “distance” (also, “at least one nozzle assembly … at a distance from the substrate” as described in claim 1), Asada et al. teach that a distance between the evaporation sources and the substrate may be adjusted according to the size of the substrate, the deposition material or the deposition situation, wherein the courts have ruled where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 3, in modified Asada et al., Asada et a;. disclose the nozzle assembly provides (i.e. is capable of providing) an overlap of a plurality of evaporating material plumes originating from a point located near the central axis of the substrate (depending on position of the nozzle assembly and how “near” is interpreted). The overlap is provided in order to allow for binary, dual, multiple deposition (e.g., see translation).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Asada et al., Asada et al. teach point evaporation source of the plurality of evaporation sources such that they are in a bundle close to each other and equidistant from the substrate (e.g. in a vertical direction) to provide mixing of evaporated materials on a molecular level via merging of individual plumes into a single plume.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0005848 to Yamazaki et al. (1) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0123804 to Yamazaki et al. (2). and U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0162647 to Chi.
Regarding claim 1: In Figs. 1-3E, e.g., Yamazaki et al. (1) discloses a system for deposition of evaporated material on a substrate substantially as claimed, the substrate having a central axis (e.g., a central vertical axis), the system comprising: (a) an evaporation chamber (101)(also see, e.g., paras. 20, 24-25, 92, 143 and claim 3 teach that the chamber is connected to evacuation and exhaust chamber/means); (b) at least one nozzle assembly (109) having a plurality of point evaporation sources (110), the point evaporation sources disposed adjacent to the central axis of the substrate and at a distance from the substrate whereby the nozzle assembly provides for (i.e. is capable of providing for) molecules of evaporated material to arrive at the substrate at an incident angle of less than or equal to 5 degrees; and (c) a shadow mask (113) disposed adjacent the substrate. Regarding the incident angle, Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose that an angle of a nozzle (810) of each point evaporation source of the plurality of the point evaporation sources can be freely selected and adjusted to achieve a desired incident angle upon the substrate (see, e.g., paras. 66-67 and 71), wherein the courts have rule where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, while Yamazaki et al. (1) fails to explicitly disclose the evaporation chamber is a vacuum chamber. This a feature well known in the art.
Yamazaki et al. (2) explicitly teach providing an evaporation chamber with vacuum exhausting means in order to keep the chamber under a reduced pressure (see, e.g., para. 151).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the evaporation chamber as an evaporation vacuum chamber in order to keep the chamber under reduced pressure during a similar evaporation deposition process as taught by Yamazaki et al. (2).
Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose each evaporation source of the nozzle assembly including a crucible (110), a nozzle (810), heater 9801 and 804), but not a thermocouple.
As part of a system for deposition of evaporated material, Chi discloses a nozzle assembly comprising a plurality of point evaporation sources, wherein evaporation source of the plurality of evaporation sources comprises a crucible (120), nozzle ([formed by 140], see, e.g., paras. 32-33), and thermocouple (not illustrated, see, e.g., para. 30) for the purpose of providing a system which prevents adhesion of deposition material to the nozzle assembly so that maintenance, management and use of the nozzle assembly is made easy (see, e.g., para. 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the system of Yamazaki et al. (1) comprising point evaporation sources including a crucible, nozzle and thermocouple in order to provide a system which prevents adhesion of deposition material to the nozzle assembly so that maintenance, management and use of the nozzle assembly is made easy as taught by Chi.
With respect to claim 3, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose the nozzle assembly provides (i.e. is capable of providing) an overlap of a plurality of evaporating material plumes originating from a point located near the central axis of the substrate (depending on position of the nozzle assembly and how “near” is interpreted). The overlap is provided in order to allow for mixing during co-evaporation.
With respect to claim 4, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (2) teach providing point evaporation sources separated from each other by a like plurality of water-cooled partitions (802) to reduce thermal cross talk between sources. See, e.g., Fig. 9 and para. 25.
With respect to claim 5, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (2) teach the water-cooled partitions have built in channels (810) to propagate water.
With respect to claim 6, which is drawn to intended use of the apparatus, the courts have ruled 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).
With respect to claim 7, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), each point evaporation source of the plurality of evaporation sources comprise and therefore are in a bundle close to each other and equidistant from the substrate (e.g. in a vertical direction) to provide mixing of evaporated materials on a molecular level via merging of individual plumes into a single plume.
With respect to claim 8, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose the system including three bundles of the point evaporation sources. See, e.g., Fig. 1, 102a, 102b, 102c.
With respect to claim 9, in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (1) fail to disclose the system including four bundles duplication 102a, 102b, 102c, instead of three. However, providing four bundles would not produce a new or unexpected result, wherein the courts have ruled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claim 10 (previously claim 11), in modified Yamazaki et al. (1), Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose a plurality of bundles, each disposed respectively on one of a plurality of swinging arms (106a-c).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 (previously claims 12-13) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Yamazaki et al. (1) as applied to claims 1 and 3-10 above and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0223853 to Caveney
Modified Yamazaki et al. (1) disclose the system substantially as claimed and as described above.
However, modified Yamazaki et al. (1) fail to explicitly disclose each swing arm of the plurality of swing arms is driven by a step motor for positioning of the bundle adjacent to the central axis of the substrate; or the step motor located outside said evaporation vacuum chamber, where motion is executed using a belt drive through a seal. Examiner does note however that the courts have ruled that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Caveney et al. disclose a swing arm driven by a step motor or another suitable type for rotatable positioning of items within a vacuum chamber wherein the step motor is located outside of said vacuum chamber and motion is executed a belt (e.g., Fig. 11, pulley and/or belt 626) through a seal (634S) for the purpose of providing independently extendible and retractable end effectors (i.e. swing arms) having a smaller footprint and therefore reduced cost per manufacturing floor space (also, see, e.g., paras. 39-41).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided each swing arm of the plurality of swing arms driven by a step motor for positioning of the bundle adjacent to the central axis of the substrate, the step motor located outside said evaporation vacuum chamber, where motion is executed using a belt drive through a seal in order to provide independently extendible and retractable (i.e. swing arms) having a smaller footprint and therefore reduced cost per manufacturing floor space as taught by Caveney et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and prior art references Asada and Yamazaki and regarding Applicant’s remarks addressing claim limitation “a plurality of point evaporation sources, the point evaporation sources disposed adjacent to the central axis of the substrate”, Examiner believes that Applicant is reading the claim language narrower than BRI suggests or requires. If the point evaporation sources are meant to be positioned a specific distance away from the center axis, and without overlap of the central axis of the substrate, and without the capability to move relative to the substrate then this should be claimed (or similar), and if supported by the original disclosure. None of these features is presently a feature of the claimed invention. Applicant is invited to clarify the claimed invention as necessary in line with the original disclosure. Please note: Examiner is not suggesting that original support exists for any of the aforementioned features. Rather, features of this nature seem to be features that Applicant is implying are not disclosed by the relied upon prior art, but meant to included as part of the claimed invention. Applicant should check and ensure support for all future amendments with the original disclosure. Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding positioning the nozzle assembly with respect to the substrate itself, Examiner also notes that the substrate is not considered a feature of an apparatus invention, wherein the courts have ruled: 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); and expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
Regarding optimizing the angle of arrival of evaporated material and Applicant’s argument that the claimed feature has been improperly addressed, Examiner disagrees that this feature is not address in the rejections set forth above. In particular, Examiner also notes that the courts have ruled that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The relied upon prior art teaches the positioning of the nozzle assembly as claimed and optimizing the incident angle of deposition. The relied upon prior art need not mention “feathering” specifically in order to be relevant and/or anticipate the claimed invention or render the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP Pub. 2007/0251457; JP-2007239070-A; JP-4287698-B2; and KR-102335724-B1 disclose systems for deposition of evaporated material on a substrate having at least one nozzle assembly having a plurality of evaporation sources; KR 100615302 has a similar disclosure.
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 KARLA MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/KARLA A MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights