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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/28/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1, 8, 9, 13 and 19 and the cancellation of claim 18. Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are pending.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112 2nd paragraph rejection of claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/28/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are addressed hereinafter.
Applicant’s arguments relative to the term coupling and connecting are noted, specifically, Applicant argues that guide bars 330 in Kang connect the units to the mask pressing plate and not the base substrate. However, Kang discloses the parts or features of the apparatus are connected, either directly or via other parts, and thus meet the broadly drafted claim requirements.
Additionally, Applicant argues that guide units 340 in Kang are not coupled to a target substrate. However, Kang discloses the parts or features of the apparatus are coupled together and thus meet the broadly drafted claim requirements requiring connection.
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 § 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) 1-3, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
As for the requirement of the base substrate comprises a planar surface, the examiner notes the drawings of Kang include a circular cross section and thus would not necessarily include a planar surface; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a shape that includes a planar surface, such as a square or rectangle shaft, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2nd 669, 149 USPQ 1966. Here, the presence or the absence of a single planar surface on the “base substrate” is not articulated by the applicant has providing any differentiation feature and the ordinary artisan would expect a square or rectangular to function identically to the circular cross section as drawn by Kang, who also does not attribute any limitations to the shape.
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 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). Kang discloses a base substrate coupled to the support module (see Figure 4-6 and accompanying text).
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 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(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 each other, 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 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). As for the requirement of grooves as claimed, the examiner cites notes Chung discloses individual magnetic chucking units attached to a base substrate, where the base substrate includes a plurality of grooves to receive a supporting part (see Figure 2 and accompanying text, 6A-6B, where the supporting parts are connected within the based substrate via what can reasonably be considered groove). See also figures 3-4, where the chucking unit is within a groove. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a groove to receive the individual chucking units as suggested by Chung as a predictable method for providing magnetic chucking of a substrate.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights