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 .
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: support module, first position control module, second position control module, movement module in claims.
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 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 9 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 9 recites the limitation "at least one electrode" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 8, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 20030224109 by Kang et al.
Claim 1: Kang discloses a deposition apparatus comprising: a support module including a plurality of support parts coupled to a target substrate (Figure 6 and accompanying text); a base substrate coupled to the support module (see e.g. 310, base substrate undefined by claims to differentiate from the structure of Kang); a connection member for connecting the plurality of support parts to the base substrate (See Figure 3 related to connection of base substrate and support parts); and a mask assembly adjacent to the target substrate (Figure 3, mask 12), and configured to mask a deposition material provided to the target substrate, wherein the support module further includes position control parts configured to control the plurality of support parts, respectively, to be movable along a direction axis perpendicular to a major surface of each of the support parts (See Figures 4-6 and accompanying text).
Claim 2. Kang discloses each of the plurality of support parts comprises at least one of the position control parts (See Figures 4-6 and accompanying text)
Claim 3: Kang discloses mask assembly comprises: a mask including a plurality of cells; and a frame configured to support the mask (see e.g. Figure 3).
Claim 8: Kang discloses the base substrate comprises what can reasonably be a separation film for separating the plurality of support parts from each other (see Figures 4-6, where support parts are separated from each other by a base substrate, which itself is a film that functions as a separator as claimed).
Claim 13: Kang discloses a deposition apparatus comprising: a support module including a plurality of support parts coupled to a target substrate (see Figure 3 and accompanying text); a movement module coupled to the plurality of support parts such that the plurality of support parts each are movable along a direction axis perpendicular to a major surface of each of the support parts (Figure 4-6, 340 movement module and 330 support parts); and a mask assembly adjacent to the target substrate, and configured to mask a deposition material provided to the target substrate (Figure 4-6, mask 12).
Claim 14: Kang discloses the movement module is provided in plurality, and the plurality of movement modules are coupled to the plurality of support parts, respectively (see Figure 4-6 and accompanying text, 340 movement module and 330 support part).
Claim 15: Kang discloses mask assembly comprises: a mask including a plurality of cells; and a frame configured to support the mask (see e.g. Figure 3).
Claim 18: Kang discloses a base substrate coupled to the support module (see Figure 4-6 and accompanying text).
Claim 19: Kang discloses the base substrate comprises position control parts configured to control the plurality of support parts to be movable along the direction axis perpendicular to the major surface of each of the support parts, respectively (see Figures 4-6).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied above and further with US Patent Application Publication 20150114293 by Chung et al. and US Patent Application 20100080891 by Yoshimura et al.
Claim 4: Kang discloses a plurality of support parts; however, fails to disclose the location and the independent movement. However, Chung, also in the art of a thin film deposition and chucking a substrate and mask discloses using independent magnetic units to achieve the chucking and locating them in various locations (see Figure 2 and accompanying text) and therefore taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to include a plurality of support parts disposed on various locations for proper chucking of the substate and mask. As for the specific locations and number of units, the examiner notes that the locations are set such that the mask and substrate are not sagging and therefore have a direct effect on the vapor deposition process and thus determination of the optimum location and number for the moveable magnetic units would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the proper chucking and reduce/prevent sagging during film deposition. Additionally, at the very least, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide individual magnetic units at the claimed locations, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Additionally, Yoshimura is cited here to support the obviousness, as it sets forth a magnetic chucking for a mask for deposition and discloses the magnets are provided in plurality at various locations including a first parts and second part independent of eachother, wherein the first part is arranged over the mask frame and a second part (Figure 1 and accompanying text). As such, it would have been obvious to have determined the location of the magnets, including at the mask frame as claimed to reap the benefits of chucking the mask to the substrate for deposition.
Claim 5: Chung discloses at least one of the first support part or the second support part is provided in plurality (see Figure 2)
Claim 6: Kang discloses the frame has a step on a surface thereof in contact with the target substrate (See Figure 3) and the location of the position control module is met by the disclosure of Kang which includes a position control module for each position control location. Additionally, at the very least, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide individual magnetic units at the claimed locations, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 7: Kang discloses one of the first position control module or the second position control module is provided in plurality (see Figure 3 and accompanying text). As for the specific locations and number of units, the examiner notes that the locations are set such that the mask and substrate are not sagging and therefore have a direct effect on the vapor deposition process and thus determination of the optimum location and number for the moveable magnetic units would have been obvious through routine experimentation to achieve the proper chucking and reduce/prevent sagging during film deposition. Additionally, at the very least, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide additional supports and position control modules, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 16-17: The limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above and made obvious for the same reasons as set forth above.
Claim(s) 9-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang as applied above and further with US Patent Application Publication 20150343580 by White et al.
Kang discloses all that is taught above and discloses magnetic chucking for a mask for deposition onto a substrate and discloses the magnet with insulation coating; however, fails to disclose the magnet includes a first insulation layer, electrode and second insulation layer. However, White, also in the art of magnetic chucking of a mask for deposition onto substrate discloses using an electromagnet for the magnet to hold the mask and frame (0027-0034) and discloses the plurality of electrodes (0040-0045), wherein the electrodes are provided with a first insulation material (rigid base support, 0040) and a second insulation material (encapsulating material, 302,0045). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Kang with the electromagnets and insulation materials as taught by White as a known and suitable structure for magnetic chucking a frame and mask during substrate processing.
Claim 10: White discloses electrodes are provided in plurality and the combination will result in the support parts each include an electrode (0041).
Claim 11: White discloses electrodes that are driven (0052).
Claim 12: Kang discloses a body part of the magnet is connected to the position control part (see Figure 3 and accompanying text).
Claim 20: White discloses these features and makes obvious such for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
PTO 892 includes additional prior art references that are pertinent to the instant claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718