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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each of the plurality of point evaporation sources comprise a plurality of nozzles” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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).
Claim 10 is missing. Misnumbered claims 11-13 have been renumbered 10-12, respectively.
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; claim 4 chiller unit wherein no specific structure was located in the specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
As discussed above, “chiller unit” invokes interpretation under U.S.C. 112(f). However, no reference of “chiller unit” in the disclosure details a specific structure to perform the claimed function attributed thereto. Without any disclosure of any structure, materials, or acts for performing the functions or any link of structure to the functions, one cannot conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. In order to expedite examination, the claims have been written and any feature capable of providing the claimed function has been interpreted as readable thereon.
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.
Claims 2 and 4-12 are 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. Any claim not specifically mentioned is rejected based on its dependence.
With respect to claim 5, claim limitation “chiller unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See above for claim interpretation.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1 recites “a throw distance”, whereas claim 1 recites “at least one nozzle assembly … at a distance from the substrate”. These two recitations appear to refer to the same distance and have been interpreted as such. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 4 recites “actively water-cooled partitions” (emphasis added). It is unclear what structural feature (or functional feature related thereto) the emphasized portion of the recitation is meant to refer. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed the emphasized portion is merely related to an intended use of the claimed structural feature (e.g., in use vs. out of use). Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 7 recites “each of the plurality of point evaporation sources comprise a plurality of nozzles”. However, as per the specification and drawings, it does not appear that any individual evaporation source comprises a plurality of nozzles, as the claim language implies. Rather, as illustrated in Fig. 6, each evaporation source 18a-c comprises a nozzle 21a-c. Additionally, claim 7 does not clearly recite or require more than one plurality of evaporation sources (i.e. more than one bundle). Thus, it is unclear what feature(s) “each” and “plurality” are meant to further define. In order to expedite examination, the claims have been examined as inclusive of an arrangement where each evaporation source has a nozzle such that overall, a plurality of nozzles are provided with respect to the bundle (or each bundle in further dependent claims 8 and 9). Claim 7 has not been interpreted as reciting or requiring a plurality of bundles. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Claim 7 also recites the phrase “good mixing”. The term “good” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “good” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In order to expedite examination, “mixing” any implicitly or explicitly disclosed mixing with respect to a claimed prior art invention is considered “good” mixing.
Claim 10 (previously claim 11) recites “each bundle” and “a plurality of arms”. However, neither claim 10, or claim 1, 7, the claims from which claim 10 depends, recite more than a bundle. In order to expedite examination, Examiner has assumed, the claim was meant to recite “wherein the system comprises a plurality of bundles, each bundle disposed on one of a plurality of swing arms” and has examined accordingly. Clarification and/or correction is requested.
As mentioned above, clarification and/or correction is requested in all instances.
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 “throw 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 comprises a nozzle (as detailed above) 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) (capable of being active, i.e., in use) 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 flow delivered from an external chiller unit (necessarily functionally provided as a source of 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 comprises a nozzle (810), 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.
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 bundle of three bundles is disposed 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.
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.
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